Is the application structure an anti-pattern?

Question

I recently implemented several web applications of the same size, one of which used the "framework" and one of which I coded myself, but used a set of existing (mostly open source) libraries to provide certain common functions, which otherwise would use a framework for.

I noticed the following:

• The framework- based application was certainly faster to set up — it worked out of the box efficiently. However, over time, and with the addition of more features, it has become increasingly difficult to maintain. As soon as I needed something that was out of scope, I forced myself to resort to some ugly workarounds.
• The library-based application needed more code to start entering and integrating the required libraries, i.e. at the beginning it was necessary to write a reasonable amount of glue code. But it turned out that over time, it became easier to spread and regroup, because there were no restrictions associated with the need to integrate structure into the design.

From this personal experience, I got the impression that using the structure can be considered an anti-pattern for long-term support.

Is this really so?

Answer 1

. , -, . , .

, , , , , . JB Nizet : " ", , , , , . , , - , .

, . , . , , , . , , , - , .

. , , . , , . , , , , , , , , .

Answer 2

, . , , , , . . , . , .

, . 90% 10% , 10%.

Answer 3

, /- - , "" "". , .

, :

• , . .

, " , ".

, , , , . , .

, . , , , , , , .

-, , , . . , , , , - .

, , .

Answer 4

, , . , , , , ? - . , , . , -. , , , , . , , , , . , -, , , , , , . .