So many things get needlessly replaced for a mix of these reasons: • ignorance: someone hasn't taken the time to understand what it does or how to use it. • m

So many things get needlessly replaced for a mix of these reasons: • ignorance: someone hasn't taken the time to understand what it does or how to use it. • maturity: the existing thing is perceived as "old", "fragile", "prone to error", not conforming to current expectations and norms (oddly, norms that the existing thing put in place). This perception is influenced by the ignorance mentioned above. • ego: the replacer's name isn't on the established thing. • hubris: the current state of the art is fragmented, and will finally be unified under a new regime, and only a new guard and new stewards can do this. There's a difference between (a) continuously making things better/adjusting to new requirements, and (b) forever creating Brooks' style Second Systems. Recognizing when the line has been crossed or that the thinking and approach is tending towards (b) is more art than science and by then the tipping point was way in the past.