This is why I think the most powerful abstraction for framework with extension points is c++ template meta programming. Wait! Hear me out!
Template meta programming is an entirely separate, incredibly complex, programming language distinct from c++. The only people I have ever seen use it in production are exceptionally skilled programmers. Everyone else flees and cowers. If they try to change it it will not compile. So why is this good? Because it only allows the framework to be extended in the ways intended by the original designer. Anyone wanting to update this unholy beast will be a master programmer who’s investing significant effort. That implies the updates will be good.
Good code is easy to change. Great code is near impossible to change, but easy to extend.
What happens when you have new requirements that weren't envisioned by the original designers, who are no longer there? How do you unravel the design to the point where you can create a new one?
With great effort. That’s kind of my point though. It’s when you are changing the design from the originally understood “these are the ways to extend and add”, to a new paradigm, that you should be expending great effort.
In such a code base, it quickly becomes understood that if changes are required to “framework Doom” in order to achieve a new feature, the time budget will need to be large. It’s built in tech-debt prevention.
Template meta programming is an entirely separate, incredibly complex, programming language distinct from c++. The only people I have ever seen use it in production are exceptionally skilled programmers. Everyone else flees and cowers. If they try to change it it will not compile. So why is this good? Because it only allows the framework to be extended in the ways intended by the original designer. Anyone wanting to update this unholy beast will be a master programmer who’s investing significant effort. That implies the updates will be good.
Good code is easy to change. Great code is near impossible to change, but easy to extend.