I'll throw you an up-vote, perhaps somewhat in irony. I left uni in 1992 and went to work for a company -using- a tool pretty much exactly as you describe. I'v

I'll throw you an up-vote, perhaps somewhat in irony. I left uni in 1992 and went to work for a company -using- a tool pretty much exactly as you describe. I've spent 31 years now solving problems, building software and training others in the tool. We're a tiny team, our closest competitor spends upwards of 50 mil a year on development. We outsell them in our space with 2 people developing. So the tool you describe exists, and there are low-thousands of very small companies (or one-man operations) dominating their industries. So tiny front end developer teams, check. Superior output, check. Lower cost of maintainence check. How much are employers willing to pay? Next to nothing. I've heard every excuse under the sun. Some are more material than others. But ultimately it boils down to risk. Stepping outside Microsoft/Apple/mainstream tools has existential risk at managerial level. Programmers don't like it cause the focus is on results, not coding fun. It very much favours people who are making a product to sell, not writing code by the hour. The makers have never spent a dime on marketing. Their Web site is terrible. Their users tend not talk too loudly about it because the competitive advantage is material. So employers don't want it. Programers dont want it. Self-employed folk love it.