For instance, I don’t think the component model in UI frameworks is popular because it commoditizes UI developers, but rather because professional developers seek to commoditize aspects of their own work which are rote or neatly fit an abstraction that frees them up to think about more pressing concerns. The same logic would apply to basically any layer of technology which has the same leverage… the only reason we’re discussing this one is because the agreement of its utility is slightly less than unanimous.

None of the ideas here stand up to scrutiny. For example, Angular with its more opinionated design and framework approach was a much better choice for regularizing developer effort and making devs fungible. But by all accounts it lost to React, which is frequently criticized in comparison for allowing too much individual variation in development style.

React itself has become increasingly more complex over the years as it's moved up the S curve and the design direction is driven towards more and more remote parts of the problem space. More than ever, it requires specialized knowledge to use correctly.

Svelte - of which the author is a fan - fits his thesis much more than React. Svelte is billed as simpler and easier to learn and use than React, without requiring developers to wrap their heads around concepts like hooks, reducers and suspense.

I'm in a position where at times I select a framework for a new product. I'm often picking these frameworks just as much based on the ability for everyone to effectively work with and communicate with other developers easily, as much as the framework's technical aspects.

Franky I'm more concerned with developers being able to work happily and efficiently than "labour arbitrage".

I feel like the author could write off any found efficiency as "labour arbitrage".

Standardized frameworks makes recruitment easier – but it stops there. Once you onboard an employee and they spend considerable time integrating into the company and developing specific knowledge, they are no longer easily replaceable. If they are a key component of the team it will be painful to replace them, it will take years to hire someone new and get them back up to that same level. It’s better to just suck it up and pay them more than endure the costs and risks of hiring new labor.

And somehow at the end of this he comes to the conclusion that software engineers need a union? We're on of the highest paid, most flexible professions ever.

It seems like the thing missing here is the simple fact that engineers DO have significant bargaining power already, and have CHOSEN to use standardized solutions because they are good, well supported, and have wonderful communities of helpful people.

What happened to this guy? Seems incredibly bitter.

Good thing I don't particularly care about this rando's opinions of me!

Work from home very much encourages it long term, even if not so much short term.

I strongly disagree with the authors conclusions about the technologies and the premise.

This is truly peak HN content.