It depends, I think.

For “apps” vanilla js isn’t enough.

But for a blog with some animations or simple validation, things like next or gatsby is WAY too much

> nowadays we have an abundance of tutorials, courses, conference talks and open source projects that can help autodidacts to learn anything related to web development.

That method was horrible, as someone who struggled with poor knowledge sources until HTMLDog and MDN became a thing.

...Conference talks? lmao your class is showing, the average self-taught hacker can't afford to go to those. Anyway, View Source is a good way to learn how to do something you see for the first time. It's a necessary feature to double-check what's being sent to the browser when you're developing, too, and keeps website operators honest by giving you a way to inspect how they build their site.

Personally I think webapps are the wrong solution for a ton of problems, but the industry won't accept that until the bottom line is affected. I'm waiting for native apps that communicate over the same commercialized protocol. QUIC but its own piece of software instead of co-opting the Web.

I agree in principle that HTML is the best option for a good user-experience, but it quickly breaks down in terms of developer-experience and maintainability. However, we don't need to compromise on either by using a solution like Qwik[1]. Where the page progressively becomes more interactive with JavaScript, and doing as much work as possible on the server beforehand.

1. https://qwik.builder.io/