Comment by no_wizard

>Linting on handoff, aka process, is the way to solve this, not dogmatic restrictions. You should always provide freeform design, otherwise your design language never evolves to changing requirements, but doing so should be an explicit choice and part of a process. Completely locking that down will also lock down creativity. This is what I was talking about in the talk I linked above about balance - going too far on either end will harm the overall process

Process is fine, but enforcing process is what is desired. Being able to express constraints globally (IE, organizationally) may limit creativity in an absolute sense, but within constraints you can have your own kind of creativity.

That means not designing features that don't fit within the bounds of a layout for example. Not the easiest to 'process lint', but the tool would know instantly. Thats what I'm talking about. Hand waving that away as a 'process human problem' is disingenuous and I'm rather frustrated thats the response Figma has to this.

So called "dogmatic restrictions" exist for a reason. Though, to say being able to enforce consistency by being able to say, only allow auto layout and associated features, isn't really 'dogmatic'. Just like linters catch features of a language nobody really should use anymore (like JavaScript's `with` for example) is the correct way to solve this problem. Thats not really dogmatic, its just good hygiene.

If Figma doesn't care about any of these real problems, than fine, then make yourself plain and say so explicitly, otherwise the tool has a huge gap in functionality that makes it irritating to actually evolve with.

I imagine this is why Figma has no concept of a staging area either, or a proper VCS, nor a review pipeline, which are also gaps in functionality that would relieve so many issues