>>The primary reason is that there is none.
That sounds flip, but even before the Web arrived, the development world was Babel-land.
The web just added to the pandemonium.

In the good old days, surgeons used lots of different prostheses in a hospital, claiming individual expertise as justification.

Then responsible surgeons got together and agreed to standardize in their facility for the benefit of operating teams (who also make a different to outcome) and to reduce complexity of equipment and spare parts and all the other known effects of variability. Best of breed prostheses were chosen and reviewed regularly. Vendors were invited to submit proposals. Efficiency and quality improved. Eventually vendors came up with robotic/automation offerings and efficiency and quality continued to improve.

Software development insists on remaining at Step 1 above, paying lip service to the benefits of standardization while actually insisting on being free-thinking artists whose genius justifies variability and additional complexity. This is why things are the way they are in software development IMHO, but to paraphrase Deming (the granddaddy of Total Quality Management:) "There is no obligation to change. Survival is optional." It's true: the market showed what it can do when it moved away from the prevalent OS vendor that was too slow, expensive and unresponsive. Developers are next: as alternatives reveal themselves we should expect the exploited customer base to migrate in droves, leaving developers trying to sell their wonderful Emperor's clothes to an empty room that has no elephant in it. ;-)