I've come to believe the difference between framework-lovers and framework-skeptics is that one (larger) group is generally following a well-trodden path and doing only things the framework authors anticipated. Viewing a framework as a common architecture extracted from the experience of writing lots of software, this makes total sense. Most software looks like X, so a framework like X will look like most software.

Those who have problems with frameworks are solving problems that are to some extent novel. Maybe only 10% novel, but that's still enough to feel like the framework is a straitjacket - because everything else is a solved problem and that 10% is the hard bit and the framework just makes it even harder.

Perhaps some of those people could re-examine their problem and achieve it in a different way using the framework, but others couldn't. But to say "if you're not using a framework you're doing it wrong" perhaps exposes a lack of experience with unusual problems, and "all software ends up containing a custom framework" is confusing frameworks with architecture.

One example I can think of was the Play framework.

If you wanted to work with Scala 3 and Play 2.7, you couldn't. You needed to stick with Scala 2.13 to be able to use Play 2.7.

This was more than a year ago. Now we have Play 2.8. Is it compatible with Scala 3 now?

Edit:

I am not entirely sure whether it was possible to make Scala 3 and Play 2.7 work. So my statement above might be partially wrong.

However, I had other dependencies too, which required me to use Scala 2.13.

Consider to downvote this, if you think I made a false statement. I should have looked up the documentation beforehand and not rely on my (past) personal experience/impression at all.

Bad mistake!