[awesomeMilou]

> They exist to supplement skill deficits in people, primarily around architecture and composition

That's just another hot take which makes no sense if you think about it. Being able to fit complex features into already existing abstractions is an even more sought after skill with frameworks than without. Frameworks exist to standardize architecture, not to mitigate skill issues.

[austin-cheney]

> Frameworks exist to standardize architecture, not to mitigate skill issues.

It's a pre-formulated architecture in a box so that developers don't have to make those such decisions, most often because they can't. That is a supplement for an absence of skills, the same reason that made jQuery popular.

[awesomeMilou]

> the same reason that made jQuery popular.

jQuery emerged from a lack of standardization and features in web browsers. It was a huge step forward and some of it's core features were standardized as extensions of the DOM interface (DOM queries are an example of this)

> most often because they can't

The issue isn't skill, it's a question of common architecure. A batteries included framework gives you exactly one choice for each part of your core architecture, which accelerates development because you don't have to worry about it. In addition, it saves you time and _immense_ costs on maintaining the core architecture of your app. React is a bad example due to it's simplicity, but take Angular or Ruby on Rails. Lot's of choices made for you, so you can benefit from the ecosystem.