One big library/framework has huge benefits and network effects, from enabling a big 3rd party plugin ecosystem, to a deeper documentation literature (including paid courses, books, and AI). It means that there's less or virtually zero getting up to speed when changing from one project to an other. It means that the upstream framework team takes care of upgrades whereas you have to consider, when a new technology comes up, how to integrate this into your stack. There's a reason that Laravel, Django, Rails, and Spring each have thousands or hundreds-of-thousands of times more websites in production than all of Clojure combined.
At a meta/discourse level, I also find the Clojure community's tendency to constantly deny and downplay any criticism or even just issue that people face to be really frustrating and counter productive.
Yes, but this is intentional. Django developers are optimizing for "easy" which makes it fast to spin up project after project, Clojure developers are optimizing for "simple" which means way longer time to get the project of the ground, to nail all the design before things start to actually be put together, which makes it easier and faster to iterate on the same codebase after years of working on.
Ask the Django developer how easy it is for them to add features after a project they've done that approach with for N years, then compare it to a Clojure codebase, and you'll notice the difference.
Sure, I guess this is "downplaying" and "denying", personally I see people who disagree with me as people who disagree with me, that's fine, I thought that was why we were sharing our opinions in this forum in the first place. But anyways, if you're very deep into "frameworks are clearly superior in every case", that we disagree probably matters less. Best wishes regardless!
I think there are lots of well maintained Django projects. In fact, if I do a search on AI and on google for what one web stack probably has the lowest overall total cost of ownership including maintenance years down the line, Django usually is what comes up, without even specifically searching for/mentioning it.
> if you're very deep into "frameworks are clearly superior in every case"
This is a mischaracterization of what I have said, and is more like the extreme position that Clojure devs seem to take. The original commenter said that Clojure is wonderful, but it's too bad that [for the people who want it,] there isn't the option of a well maintained, all-in-one, batteries included framework. You deny that this is a problem, saying that actually a well-chosen set of libraries are superior (I guess in every case, because if not then it actually would be a problem sometimes).
This led to a lot of Clojure code being simple, but avoiding the hard additional work of also making it easy, and sometimes in even making it complete.
The prime example was tools.deps/deps.edn. It largely supplanted Leiningen for new code, but by being simple and minimal, it led to an explosion of ad hoc, custom tooling for 2-3 years afterwards, as everyone rewrote functionality that Lein already had, but tools.deps was missing. (And I say this as someone who once lost a whole week debugging a subtle maven/lein set ordering bug.)
