I'd argue that it might be a good thing. Should it take infinite energy to solve the problem of creating a decent CSS framework that works in modern browsers?
The challenge is that frameworks like TWBS and Foundation provide web developers with a great boost in productivity when trying to hammer out a product. They can spend more time on building a quality product and less time on the minutiae. It also creates a shared vernacular for the developer and the designer to work with. Without it, things are more grey.
Obviously some people hate these frameworks, and that's totally valid too, but for some people, they really are a boost.
I interpreted d33's comment along the lines that maintaining a matured framework should need less effort than it took to initially build it, so it would be natural that the amount of changes is shrinking.
I mean, maybe? What's a 'stall'? Are we measuring commits/day? Is it important to have a constant number of commits/day throughout the lifetime of the product?
Why can't something like this be considered 'feature-complete'? Suppose at some point we run out of major features to add and infinite refactoring to do, and will only fix bugs? Will the framework be considered 'stalled' then, or merely 'mature'?
There are only so many 'issues' that a framework can solve and make things easier for you. Why not take advantage of a few basic features right? Why re-invent the wheel?
Perhaps this is the answer.
You can only rely on the framework to get you so far. These frameworks have become a crutch for developers.
No - It did not stall. The contributions graph are ONLY for commits on master branch. As you can switch to other branches - you can notice that they have 2k,3k or 4k commits ahead of master. Its being actively developed. But not much on master branch. Just on different branches. Mostly on v4-dev branch.
8 comments
[ 18.0 ms ] story [ 1504 ms ] threadObviously some people hate these frameworks, and that's totally valid too, but for some people, they really are a boost.
Why can't something like this be considered 'feature-complete'? Suppose at some point we run out of major features to add and infinite refactoring to do, and will only fix bugs? Will the framework be considered 'stalled' then, or merely 'mature'?
There are only so many 'issues' that a framework can solve and make things easier for you. Why not take advantage of a few basic features right? Why re-invent the wheel?
Perhaps this is the answer.
You can only rely on the framework to get you so far. These frameworks have become a crutch for developers.