> “It’s too hard to learn” (If your pet technology were 1000x more productive than, say, Java, would this learning curve really be a substantive barrier? I thi

> “It’s too hard to learn” (If your pet technology were 1000x more productive than, say, Java, would this learning curve really be a substantive barrier? I think the simple answer is "yes". It doesn't matter how much more "productive" something is if the vast majority of people simply aren't capable of learning it (or learning to use it well enough or doing it in a reasonable amount of time or whatever). He does go on to point out: > Though this question is more complicated than you think And suggests one read his more detailed treatment of the question, including what I found most relevant, which is a more nuanced treatment of the notion of productivity, having to do with labor costs, fungibility of that labor, market competition, and overall limited resources. https://pchiusano.github.io/2016-02-25/tech-adoption.html https://pchiusano.github.io/2016-02-25/tech-adoption.html https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17114935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17114935 I would expect that any technology that can be classified as sufficiently exotic is viewed as a huge risk, one not worth taking, by larger companies, which has traditionally included obsolescent tech and bleeding-edge/unproven tech, but easily includes a language that's too hard for the average programmer learn.