Sometimes I question if people claiming vanilla is spaghetti have actually used vanilla in any meaningful way or if they are just parroting what others have said. I find that a lot of times, it's the latter...

For example, something that I've come to find cumbersome about frameworks is that expressing things in terms of states makes it more convoluted to express mutations. For example: in vanilla, one sensible unit of organization would be something like this:

   const doThing => {
     input.value = value;
     input.focus();
     sound.play();
   }
   button.onclick = doThing

Expressing `input.value = value` is what frameworks generally shine at, but expressing the method calls is usually clunky, since they represent effects and those can't really be expressed in terms of state snapshots. So, expressing them in a "frameworky" way usually just looks like some variation of this, but on top of some abstraction (think, e.g. React's useEffect nested anonymous functions + refs + probably context and a provider because you're not going to just initialize your sound manager in your component, right?).

I think frameworks are about colocating things in some specific way, and whether the colocation structure is "good" is largely a matter of herd acceptance. W/ older frameworks like Backbone and Angular, the focus was on colocating things to fit a MVC paradigm. And people were totally on board with that. With Redux, one colocates actions for a particular piece of state. And people sing their praises about this structure too.

With reaonably written vanilla JS, it's not that there's no colocation. One colocates mutations related to a single action. It may not be a "cool kid" organization structure, but it _is_ structure.

Of course, one can write bad vanilla JS, but that's also true about any framework.