Yes, precisely because I've been involved in maintaining codebases built without real full stack frameworks is why I say what I said.The problem we have in this industry, is that somebody reads these blog posts, and the next day at work they ditch the "legacy rails" and starts rewriting the monolith in sveltekit/nextjs/whatever because that's what he/she has been told is the modern way to do full stack.No need to say those engineers will quit 1 year later after they realize the mess they've created with their lightweight and simple modern framework.I've seen this too many times already.It is not about gatekeeping. It is about engineers being humble and assume it is very likely that their code is very unlikely to be better tested, documented, cohesive and maintained than what you're given in the real full stack frameworks.Of course you can build anything even in assembler if you want. The question is if that's the most useful thing to do with your company's money.

We standardize on a finite subset of JS (such as asm.js) — and avoid the endless struggle through future iterations of the JavaScript language, competing super-sets and transpilers

many organizations have been burned by the high churn in JavaScript tooling, which sadly moves projects backwards as a part of moving the web forward

While Rails supports numbering of initializer file names for load ordering purposes, a better technique is to place any code that need to load in a specific order within the same file. This reduces file name churn, makes dependencies more explicit, and can help surface new concepts within your application.