4 ms·
> Moreover, very, very few people look to improve their efficiency by learning entirely new tech stacks. I firmly believe (against the common HN sentiment) tha
by Random_ernest 7y ago
> Moreover, very, very few people look to improve their efficiency by learning entirely new tech stacks.
I firmly believe (against the common HN sentiment) that 99% of the developers do exactly 0 exploration of new technology and they couldn't care less (which is their good right). Also not everybody sits in a fancy startup in the Bay-Area and has even the skills or time to adapt. Most developers sit in a big company that has been doing their stuff for 10+ years and are not very susceptible to change. As an anecdotal example, I recently talked to a company that could not figure out why they could not attract talent. They claimed "we are so innovative, we even adapted PostgreSQL". Before that they used csv as their "database".
- vbezhenar 7y agoIsn't your post a bit controversial? You're writing that 99% of the developers don't care about new technologies and then that some company who adapted PostgreSQL can't attract talents. Or they are not happy with those 99% of candidates?
- Random_ernest 7y agoOkay when I reread it, I see your point. I used their wording, in fact they can't attract anyone but they used the word "talent" for anyone that can code.
- naasking 7y ago> I firmly believe (against the common HN sentiment) that 99% of the developers do exactly 0 exploration of new technology and they couldn't care less (which is their good right). Is it though? It certainly is and should be your right to use whatever tools or language you want for your hobby projects on your own time, but in a professional setting or for production products, I think there's an argument to be made that software developers should have significant constraints on the sorts of tools and languages they should be permitted to use (domain-specific of course).