3 ms·

In other words: 'When you have the option, use the stack you're most comfortable with'.

• bunderbunder 10y ago
  It's not just comfort, it's that stuff that's been around the block a few times tends to fall into one of two categories: Stuff that's solid and stable and not very fussy, and stuff that nobody uses anymore because it's a PITA. That makes it pretty easy to make good technology decisions. Newer technology tends, almost by definition, to be very experimental. And experimental means, almost by definition, that some ideas are going to work out and others aren't. Oftentimes it takes a while to figure out which is which. And popularity, even extreme popularity, tends not to be a good proxy for robustness - if anything, it's a source of noise that only makes it harder to figure out what's robust because hype tends to be a pretty darned autoregressive process.
  • amorphid 10y ago
    I find Elixir easier than Ruby and Javascript, one you figure the actor model, dialyzer, and reading other people's macros.
  • rch 10y ago
    Sure, but longevity alone is an insufficient criterion. There are a few venerable, perfectly adequate, stacks (for lack of a better term) that I would rather not start new projects with. I say this as someone who once had to argue forcefully to start a new project in .Net while it was still in beta.