[munk-a]

Modular frameworks are worth their weight in gold when compared to "highly opinionated frameworks". I don't mind something that's highly opinionated - and highly opinionated is an excellent trait for a library or tool. That lib/tool likely has a large amount of domain expertise in the particular area it operates in.

When it comes to frameworks - highly opinionated tends to get corrupted into "We have this hammer and suddenly everything looks like a nail" - it doesn't always happen and it doesn't always bite you but when orthodoxies are taken from one domain and applied broadly you run the risk of some of the justifications for that orthodoxy being domain specific and being violated in the wider context.

So, when it comes to frameworks, I like modularity where I have options to plug in a different ORM or persistence integration layer - where I can swap out the router - or the validator - or any other component that proves a poor fit for our problem. It is especially valuable if there are multiple paradigms expressed in alternatives within the framework's ecosystem since you may find a pre-baked tool that mostly works where you can choose an option with shortcomings that are clear and addressable if ever the need arises.

To support maintainability it's very important to fight against NIH-ism, that is a constant danger that can soak up resources at an alarming pace - but it's also important to realize that there are some components that you will greatly benefit from tweaking or taking full ownership of with the most difficult problem being trying to figure out which is which.

I appreciate deeply that your list put maintainability first - that's my opinion as well!