I'm not really sure why you think these articles are not contributing to sensible discussion. Both articles provide arguments for their case, neither seem dogma

I'm not really sure why you think these articles are not contributing to sensible discussion. Both articles provide arguments for their case, neither seem dogmatic about it. In contrast, your comment offers no arguments, you merely dismiss the debate as uninteresting, while simultaneously misunderstanding what these authors are talking about: you claim one should simply "choose the right tech for the job", as if there is always an obvious right choice. But it seems pretty clear to me that both authors agree that this is in fact often a hard choice. And both articles are about such situations: what to do if the choice between multiple technologies is hard. In reality, you can almost never really evaluate all the alternatives, so you need some sort of "reasoned bias", a heuristic that helps you decide between candidates. "Choose boring technology" and "choose exciting technology" are both suggestions for such heuristics.