The same question would have been valid during the creation of React, or Webpack. People create new frameworks and tools to try to solve pain points, sometimes they're runaway successes like React or Angular 1, sometimes they're good complimentary tools like Vue.js, and sometimes they fall completely flat, like perhaps Batman.js. Either way, the question of whether we need a new JS framework is not very productive. The right question would be, what can a new JS framework offer that would be worth switching to it for? The answer will differ per team and application.

I will say that a front-end focused framework that even acknowledges the existence of a backend is refreshing. And this seems to be a framework in the classic sense - a complete solution to deliver a particular type of app, rather than a library that handles one aspect for you.

That's not everyone's cup of tea, but it is an area that doesn't have a lot of attention in modern JS libraries.

The more frameworks, the more there are to learn. The more effort required to learn all frameworks, the more appealing it becomes to roll your own.

(The combination of choice paralysis and opportunity cost analysis are a powerful motivator, especially when one comes to the budding realization that even the mightiest frameworks are full of irks. More fun in being a total NIH control freak.)

In my opinion; It's important that people try to innovate diverge and make things different. Like the theory of evolution in nature, ideas change and merge, some die out some live on.

But, each new iteration of an framework, library or distro will provide some new insight of what can be done better ... or what should not be done.

Obligatory comment questioning yet another "new js framework".

PSA: Don't make a new JS framework guys we don't need any more. /s