Hmm, no capitalists in the debate? I guess "let the market decide" isn't the favored approach?
The market is made up of individuals making informed and conscious decisions with many factors that are ultimately weighed intuitively. Discussions like this inform those decisions, and inform the market. As a result I think deferring to the market is a little silly: we are the market, this is the market working, there's nothing external to be deferred to. And programmers are uniquely positioned to be both consumers and producers, and to frequently make decisions about what role they want to play in a certain circumstance.
For instance, it would be an entirely valid choice for someone to use a piece of Django that they take from the framework; to choose decoupling whether or not the framework encourages it. It would be valid to wrap Django against its will, though you have to remember that it will also be fragile (and that package is almost certain to be broken right now as a result). The choices we have are infinite, and not just in theory but in practice. With so many choices, how is someone supposed to make a good choice without substantial amounts of discussion?
It's a bit detached from reality to argue you're 10x better technically but then not have the average newcomer able to figure out how to use your kit.
I didn't actually say the decoupled approach is "better", though of course it's generally accepted that decoupled is better than coupled. But that's only true when everything else is equal, and I am not claiming everything else is equal, or even that coupling is a free variable when considering other important attributes. But decoupled and coupled are fairly objective terms, so I feel justified using them clearly in this context; better and worse are highly subjective and contextual.
Discussions like this inform those decisions, and inform the market.
we are the market, this is the market working, there's nothing external to be deferred to. And programmers are uniquely positioned to be both consumers and producers, and to frequently make decisions about what role they want to play in a certain circumstance.
Well sorta -- I think the number of people involved at low levels with the projects in question (variable) is a tiny part of the overall "market" in this case -- the handful of people doing (at least publicly) WSGI stuff and/or core Django devs is (I hope) a very small part of the overall userbase. But certainly it's still an example of the market working, even if it seems weighted towards the producer end of things. I was casually dropping the market comment in relation to "the masses" (we can hope!).
It seems to me the fact that programmers are often "consumers and producers" is often a reason many projects become opaque and unapproachable to people who aren't as deeply involved -- that is the "occasional" consumers or new consumers who are at a totally different level of "consumer" than the producers. This of course doesn't negate any sound reasoning in design or whatever, but many projects fail to successfully address these consumers. Often on this point a more "packaged" or "designed to all seamlessly work together" solution has an inherent headstart, as it's a much simpler story to tell.
In other words, until the solution you (and myself to my more limited abilities) support can demonstrate the ability to retain (build on) its technical strengths but still appeal to non-"producers" and more casual users and make _those_ things equal, the endless technical ping-pong might be unecessary(?)