Using a framework will harm the maintenance of your software
1. Every sufficiently complex framework-free application contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of a framework.<p>2. If you have a talented team, that half of a framework can be much better than using a one-size-fits-all framework that is popular because it used to be lean and mean with a small surface area, but has grown over time to do everything for everyone, becoming a complex monster.<p>3. If you have a small team that hires slowly, it&#x27;s relatively straightforward to bring new devs up to speed on &quot;the way we do things.&quot; if you are hiring rapidly and&#x2F;or have a large team, the more bespoke things you have, the harder it is to maintain them.<p>4. Over time, everything degrades. In the long run, many framework-free applications either get walled off as &quot;legacy&quot; apps with new work done in separate services, or replaced outright. If it makes you money before that happens, you win. It is not necessary to try to design architecture that will last for centuries.<p>5. My last and--to me the most significant--observation is this: You want to pay the majority of your attention to the code that has the greatest impact on your desired outcomes.<p>Using libraries and frameworks is like a business outsourcing things that aren&#x27;t its core competency and also aren&#x27;t competitive differentiators. Most software shops do not win by having their own framework or by not having a framework, they win by using something bog-standard and saving their attention for the part of their code that &quot;moves the needle.&quot;<p>But that&#x27;s only &quot;most,&quot; and your business may be one of the few.