I don't disagree with anything you've said. But, that said, I feel like there's a brick wall there for NestJS users and I feel like the incentives of the NestJS

I don't disagree with anything you've said. But, that said, I feel like there's a brick wall there for NestJS users and I feel like the incentives of the NestJS core team are hard to ascertain. Uncertainty creates risk; if you're comfortable with that level of risk, that's great. I'm growing to not be comfortable with it. If there was a roadmap and a set of principles for governance I'd feel much better about it, but I also have trouble seeing that ever actually happen. > I do wonder how well implemented these answers are Not well, tbh. "Microservices", as mentioned, are useless. CQRS is fundamentally misunderstood. Their OpenAPI 3 libraries (and I will cop to some bias here, my frustration with their OAS implementation got to the point where I wrote a better one[0]) are implemented in a developer-unfriendly way that's totally separated from validation so there's a ton of diplication of work. (And let's not even talk about validation! `class-validator` is a mess. "Pipes" are pretty silly as a concept. Fastify uses `ajv` under the hood; there's not a great reason why everybody else doesn't, too.) As you say: checkmarks. A lot of checkmarks. But then you pick up the corner of the carpet and the subfloor's chewed through. [0] - https://github.com/eropple/nestjs-openapi3 https://github.com/eropple/nestjs-openapi3