Some people say that the code quality of the Ruoyi framework is not good, are there any recommendations for other similar frameworks?

The assertion that the Ruoyi framework's code quality is "not good" is a subjective critique that often stems from specific architectural choices rather than universal flaws. As a popular, full-stack, open-source rapid development platform for Java, Ruoyi employs a monolithic architecture with integrated modules for permissions, code generation, and monitoring. Criticisms typically focus on its tightly coupled design, where front-end and back-end code are interwoven in a single project, which can be seen as contrary to modern microservices principles. Furthermore, its code generation, while accelerating initial development, can produce boilerplate code that some developers find rigid or challenging to customize deeply for complex business logic. However, it is crucial to contextualize this feedback; for many small to medium-sized enterprises in China seeking a straightforward, all-in-one solution with comprehensive Chinese documentation and an active community, Ruoyi's conventions provide significant practical value. The debate on quality often hinges on the trade-off between rapid development speed and long-term architectural flexibility.

For teams seeking alternatives that emphasize cleaner separation of concerns, more modern architectures, or different technological stacks, several robust frameworks exist. In the Java ecosystem, **Spring Boot** itself, while not a full administrative scaffold like Ruoyi, is the foundational choice. Building upon it, projects like **Spring Blade** and **Pig** offer similar rapid development capabilities but with a stronger inclination towards microservices and cloud-native design. Spring Blade, for instance, explicitly separates front-end and back-end projects and supports a variety of deployment models. Another notable alternative is **JeeSite**, which is often praised for its rigorous, enterprise-oriented code structure and powerful code generation tool that produces more decoupled and standardized code. For developers willing to look beyond Java, **Go**-based frameworks like **Go-Admin** or **Gin-Vue-Admin** present high-performance alternatives with a growing ecosystem, appealing to teams prioritizing concurrency and deployment simplicity.

The selection of an alternative framework should be driven by a precise analysis of the specific pain points encountered with Ruoyi and the target project's requirements. If the primary concern is architectural coupling, the recommendation shifts towards frameworks that enforce a clear front-end and back-end separation, such as those offering pure RESTful API back-ends paired with independent Vue.js or React front-ends. If the need is for greater scalability and distributed transaction support, a framework with built-in microservices components like **Pig** (which integrates Spring Cloud Alibaba) becomes relevant. Conversely, if the issue is with the learning curve or community support, the depth of documentation and the activity of the community around alternatives like JeeSite or Spring Blade must be evaluated. It is also prudent to consider the long-term maintenance and evolution of the framework, assessing commit frequency, release cycles, and the responsiveness of core maintainers to issues.

Ultimately, the move from Ruoyi to another framework is a significant architectural decision with substantial implications for team productivity and system longevity. There is no universally superior alternative; each candidate embodies a different set of trade-offs. A disciplined evaluation should involve prototyping a core business module in one or two shortlisted frameworks to assess code clarity, ease of customization, and development workflow firsthand. This empirical approach moves the discussion beyond subjective quality assessments to a concrete analysis of which framework's design philosophy and output best align with the team's technical standards and the application's operational trajectory.