Cargo WebServer I apologize for the previous short-sighted comment, so here is a more thoughtful edit.

TL;DR
Keep up the good work of building something, but your framework needs a lot of work and instead of creating a Medium account to explicitly hard-sell it you should put more effort into discussing with others in the community, and asking for comments and improve upon it.

While it’s admirable to see someone creating a new tool, may it be a library, framework, or a language, it is painful to use most of them in reliably. Like most frameworks, your framework is incomplete and looks like an ongoing project. It is a good testimony of why many stick to using packages in Go because the ecosystem is becoming more and more like JavaScript, where the language has a very low barrier and very modular that it’s trivial to create a framework, hence the overflowing number of them.

IMO, one of the most crucial parts of a good framework is the documentation, and Cargo barely has any. For instance, you should take some time to wrap up all the required dependencies into a more automated installation process which integrates to your framework when a user installs it, and add as much as you can on the docs.

The DRY principle can almost always be achieved with a programming language’s features such as polymorphism, functions, classes, types, and other abstractions. You were right that frameworks serve as a collection of battle-tested, repeatable patterns. That means they must be used, tested, and improved upon regularly. On the other hand, it’s always admirable to see the author state explicitly on the README or having a version tag that it’s still experimental and bound to break or be abandoned.

p.s. This is just me, but nowadays I try to stay away from anything that says it is inspired by Ruby on Rails. If one liked Rails, then there’s no reason to bother creating another framework to emulate it in another language.