Tech choices do matter, but I think the point of the post is that some developers chase tech choices for the wrong reasons. I don't think of a boring developer

Tech choices do matter, but I think the point of the post is that some developers chase tech choices for the wrong reasons. I don't think of a boring developer as someone who wouldn't look at transitioning from locally hosted servers to AWS. I think of them as the kind of developers who would have considered the move in terms of a cost/benefit analysis rather than doing it just because the cloud was the new hotness. The non-boring developers the post is talking about are the ones who would have immediately moved to AWS when it came out, just because it was new, and then kept moving to whatever the latest PaaS flavor of the month was every few months just because it was newer. I think those non-boring developers have good intentions, and certainly think of it in terms of staying on top of the industry, but I'm not sure they weigh all the factors in their choices. In particular, I think they tend to overestimate the benefit of switching technology while underestimating the cost to switch and the unknowns that come with a new technology. More than once I have heard a developer argue for doing a fair amount of work to switch to a new technology to gain what is in the end a relatively minor improvement. In my experience, it's certainly possible that a new tech stack could dramatically increase productivity, but even more often it seems like the result in the long run is a heavy lift to embrace the new technology, followed by the discovery of unknown issues, followed by being underwhelmed by the improvement in the end product. I think it's worthwhile exploring new technologies as they come out, but on a strictly evaluation basis and with the understanding that switching to them should be a the result of a measured analysis rather than doing so just because they are new and exciting.