I think is more of an indictment on the javascript ecosystem generally, because there's so much more to building an app that runs JS than just your standard MVC/MVVM/pick-your-pattern web frameworks.
You have to deal with various layers of transpilation on your JS, styles and assets and that all needs to be flexible enough to fit a wide set of use cases for the community. It's gotten to the point you need to be an expert in all of the different ways you can bundle and deploy a JS app in order for the jargon associated with these tools to make any sense.
I see the same issue with libraries and frameworks in any language. For example, I came across Dark Lang [1] yesterday, and the front page is similarly cryptic if you aren't familiar with back end work.
- People might interpret that as "drop-in replacement for webpack", which is definitely not true
- Even as just "a replacement for webpack"; Webpack and Vite have a lot of overlap, and it makes sense to compare them, but I think there are too many asterisks and nuances to say they're equivalent, in official materials, unqualified
Rather imprecise then have people confused of what it does - especially when the confusion could be fixed by a sentence.
Just have a hyper link that directions to a comparison page explaining the nuance. Even without the hyperlink I wouldn’t assume people would think it’s a 1:1 clone drop in replacement. People don’t just drop in a new tool without research and comparing it against their new tool.
"WTF IS IT?" is an endemic problem with marketing and startups.
Marketing is a skill, that many people in marketing so often don't have, and lot of leaders fail to grasp. It's so sad.
Imagine losing 1/2 of your potential uptake because of poor choice of words.