Paul Jones has an interesting post on his site today talking about how how your "framework of choice" will eventually fail even if there is long term support for it. He points to another article about trial and error and emphasizes that (as Richard Feynman has said) failures are just as important as successes.
When it comes to expanding a body of knowledge, the failures are just as important as the successes, perhaps more so in some cases. (Be careful here; they have to be "honest" failures, where you had some reason to believe in advance that it had a good chance of working.) So what is it about the "Pipe Dream" article [here] that impressed me? It is that the the author first signals his tribe membership by mentioning his "framework of choice", then proceeds to try to do some work outside of that tribe.
Paul goes on to talk about the usefulness of stepping outside of your norm - your framework of choice - and getting a wider perspective on how others do things. He looks at some of the ways that current frameworks could fail in the future and figuring out how well it will deal with it when it does. He points out that several times the failure comes from "subsystem failures" and that systems that allow the swapping out of these components would handle things more gracefully. He gives the example of the Aura framework of this, being highly component-based.