3 ms·
The costs of taking decisions like these (e.g: using old or proprietary technologies) are: - Career growth: your team will be accruing experience in a technolo
by partycoder 10y ago
The costs of taking decisions like these (e.g: using old or proprietary technologies) are:
- Career growth: your team will be accruing experience in a technology the market does not need. That is not in their best interest, and they will not feel happy about it.
- Hiring: It becomes difficult to hire people when you decide to move away from what everyone else is doing.
- Sunk cost: As more code using old libraries is added, migration becomes more expensive.
- scarface74 10y agoHonest question. Could the same be said about using a technology that is not old or proprietary but not the most popular? I'm thinking in particular about Ember. I'm leaning toward Ember for our web apps because in some of our apps, any full framework is overkill and we are going with a combination of Jquery + Handlebars, but other times, we may want to use a full framework and Ember uses Handlebars for templating. I'm not seeing any jobs for Ember.
- partycoder 10y agoSome technologies are not used by the vast majority of people (e.g: Erlang, Oz, Haskell, Prolog) but working with them will always offer you a valuable lesson if they teach a different paradigm. e.g: the actor model, dataflow concurrency, logic programming and so many more stuff. Those are extreme examples of different paradigms. So, the question now is: are you cultivating skills related to an obsolete paradigm, or a skill that you cannot trade in the market? If so, that's not good.