Indeed. Over the years I've seen so many developers become discouraged to continue their #ActivityPub projects after becoming initially highly excited upon first reading the #W3C specs. They bump into a world of undocumented complexity, harsh wire realities, inconsistencies and tech debt. Only the true "stayers" grit their teeth and keep at it. Developers love to be able to focus on a solution, and not get mired into all kinds of low-level plumbing that is not related to that.
This makes tech that's social-culturally worse (ATProto w/ centralization, VC capital) still have better uptake potential.
I gave special mention to both @fedify and @Bonfire in my article. For #Fedify for how they focus on providing a framework and SDK that hands people software so that they can focus on "solution development" immediately. And #Bonfire because they constitute a framework, but also engage directly with clients and partners in solution development, closest to making the paradigm shift.
@smallcircles@social.coop you say "Over the years I've seen so many developers become discouraged to continue their #ActivityPub projects after becoming initially highly excited upon first reading the #W3C specs. They bump into a world of undocumented complexity, harsh wire realities, inconsistencies and tech debt"
IMO while this is true, because many developers approach building on the fediverse as hobbyists, out of personal curiousity and to meet their own needs first, despite there being libraries and frameworks to take care of those boring/complex parts that would enable them to focus on "solution development" like you say, almost nobody picks these up and instead "reinvent the wheel" so to speak in terms of implementing all the protocol parts...