Long-term open-source projects, such as Automad, require stability and independence from third-party libraries. Relying on external frameworks introduces risks that can impact maintainability, long-term support, and overall project longevity.
Removing dependencies on jQuery and UIkit in preparation for Automad 2 was a painful process that ultimately led to an entire re-write. This transition required significant effort to replace legacy implementations with modern, native solutions while ensuring feature parity and long-term stability.
The Appeal of Frameworks
In my day job as a software engineer, I work extensively with React and Svelte, along with their respective metaframeworks, Next.js and SvelteKit. These tools provide significant advantages in modern development workflows, including:
- Support for teams with varying skill levels
- Rapid development
- Easy onboarding
- Common industry knowledge
However, these benefits come with a hidden cost: dependency on the decisions of framework authors.
The Hidden Costs of Framework Dependency
When adopting a frontend or backend framework, you are not just using a tool â you are also agreeing to follow the evolution of that tool. This means:
- Breaking changes
- Shifting paradigms
- Ecosystem lock-in
- Uncertain longevity
For a project like Automad, which aims for long-term maintainability and minimal dependencies, these issues present a real challenge.
The Case for Native Solutions
Instead of relying on third-party frameworks, Automad embraces native web technologies where possible. Native solutions, such as Web Components, provide:
- Stable APIs
- No external dependencies
- Built-in browser support
- Full component lifecycle management
Despite these advantages, Web Components have often been met with skepticism, primarily due to negative perceptions perpetuated by framework maintainers. Many articles critiquing Web Components come from authors with vested interests in framework adoption.
That being said, using smaller libraries and packages is not a problem as long as they can be easily isolated and replaced. Unlike monolithic frameworks, modular libraries provide flexibility without locking a project into a particular ecosystem or paradigm.
Conclusion
Automad's decision to move away from frontend and backend frameworks is driven by a long-term vision of stability, maintainability, and independence. While frameworks provide immediate benefits, they also introduce long-term risks that are incompatible with the goals of an open-source CMS that seeks to remain lightweight, flexible, and future-proof. By leveraging native solutions, Automad ensures a stable foundation that is not subject to the shifting priorities of third-party framework maintainers.
Top comments (0)