[ErrantX]

I used to feel this way. However I tended to find myself, on most projects, spending a surprising amount of time tweaking incompatibilities between the various lightweight libraries I was using. And it was a bit of an effort to unify things like logging and error reporting.

Which is when I realised the utility of a bulky framework; for the most part it is a suite of libraries that work together/are compatible but which someone else maintains for me :)

This was a big step for me.

(although I still use the lightweight approach for smaller projects)

[symbiotic]

That's a reasonable complaint, but maybe it means we need better lightweight libraries with well thought out interfaces or better library management like deweller suggested in the comments on the original thread.

[ErrantX]

That would be good - but then you begin to talk about a unified logging interface and standardisation like folder structure, class loading, class interfaces and so on.

At which point it's basically a framework (perhaps without the routing/initialisation code).

One thing I would like to see (no idea if it exists) is a core package architecture (that did all of the above) and let you hang packages as and when you need them.

I've been keeping an eye out for such a thing for a while with no joy.