I get this sentiment. But I think it's not so much that there's a framework but rather that the framework is an I'll fit for the problem to be solved. So you "f

I get this sentiment. But I think it's not so much that there's a framework but rather that the framework is an I'll fit for the problem to be solved. So you "fight" with it. In general, it seems like the easier it is to do something in the scope of the framework, the harder it is to bend the framework to do something outside it's scope. We've all seen this with frameworks that make 95% of the work really easy, and the remaining 5% is like pulling teeth. You're bending the thing where it's not meant to be bent. (And that's when new frameworks are made. :) ) But if you go lower, under the framework, it's way more flexible. As a dev, you can explore and create instead of fighting. Which is great. But really we're just on a different turtle. Raw JS has a really hard time with some problems when you try to bend it wrong. Our job is to take the right technologies for the job and make them work, no matter how abstracted they are. The pain is merely from the wrong tool. And, truly, it sucks when you have to do that.