3 ms·

The not so hidden assumption that came with the pitch was that a bunch of the well-paid senior staff would leave for greener pastures (they wouldn't stick to ma

• Trasmatta 5y ago
  Or alternatively, there are some senior staff that are just plain bored with the current stack, and want the chance to play with something more exciting to them. Both are possibilities, depending on where the idea is originating.
  • travisgriggs 5y ago
    I’m guilty of doing this at my current company. I am a creative builder. There’s something inspiring about building things in a new format, the same way an artist might explore art in a new medium. I get frustrated with the parts of the company that use “technology X” because it’s a “core competency.” I’d be more accepting of this argument if I didn’t notice a strong correlation between proponents of this strategy and people who often do bare minimum maintenance, purely market request driven, nothing inspiring or innovative or game changing. Then competitor does something cool next door and tue blame game starts as the pink slips issue. Evolve or die. There is of course the flip side of this coin, and the yen-yang of balance is what makes for the best strategy.
    • rmoriz 5y ago
      >Evolve or die. The value in one's application is the domain specific part (the product). By switching the tools, which almost always are created outside of one's organization, you don't enhance your product. With each rewrite you risk the advantages of your existing product and you will still be a consumer of third party language/framework, just another one yet without experience.