3 ms·

There are cases - like a brand new service - where a new language or framework is a good idea. In some very rare cases, rewrites can also be a good idea. But

• littlecranky67 5y ago
  Exactly. Remembering Scala? It had a lot of drag around 2010-2015 and everybody was like "this is going to replace Java everywhere". Now it is still alive, you will find some jobs, but career wise Java devs are in higher demand, and I don't think that'll change again.
  • TeMPOraL 5y ago
    Don't confuse popularity with hotness. The latter is the first derivative of the former. Rust is hot, but not popular. Scala is somewhat hot (was truly hot a couple years ago) and somewhat popular. Java is lame, but very popular. JavaScript is... a goddamn black hole.
• Chris2048 5y ago
  > But choosing a new technology just because it's new and popular? Sure, but the given example states that as assumption. IRL how is that determined. The article states: > Investigating, you find out that there’s no compelling business reason for the component to be written in Rust. Not much of a technical reason either but doesn't detail if that was based on (or in agreement with) the opinion of the senior engineer who implemented the service, or the opinion of the author (whose role isn't that clear). I'd also state that that while "choosing a new technology just because it's new" is bad (although could easily be a proxy for the features that the new thing actually brings - Rust isn't just a new rehash of existing languages, it brings unique features); "choosing a new technology just because it's popular" does have merit.