I once saw some software from someone who claimed they had solved business software once and for all. What they actually had built was a CMS where the data type

I once saw some software from someone who claimed they had solved business software once and for all. What they actually had built was a CMS where the data types were also in the CMS alongside the instances of those types. Y'know, like most modern CMSs. Their point was that you could build anything in it because it was so flexible, but when pressed to give real-world examples they struggled. Another teachable moment for me was when studying Haskell, realising that the fewer type restrictions you put on a function, the less the function could do. This was counter intuitive to me – surely with fewer restrictions you can do more! But no, with fewer restrictions you know less about what you've got, and so there's less you can do with the data. This comparison might be a bit of a reach. In a similar vein, Bonfire seems to be trying to be all things to all people, a network, and a protocol, and the instance software, and a community, for Twitter-like, or Facebook-like, or other types of social networks. Maybe it is actually everything social in one project, but that doesn't tell me how to use it. Maybe it is actually just a generic function with no real type data, that therefore can't be used for anything specific.