3 ms·
Yeah, I suspect the most common reason is some version of "we have already spent millions on hiring people with experience in x, and it would be too expensive t
by Thorentis 5y ago
Yeah, I suspect the most common reason is some version of "we have already spent millions on hiring people with experience in x, and it would be too expensive to refactor and use y". Sometimes the best tool is the one you already own and use.
- bruce511 5y agoA million times this. I use x. Y exists. When someone pitches y to me, I'm happy to stipulate that y is better. (it is, or isn't, but that doesn't matter, so I'm happy to concede/ignore that point.) The question is, will Y compile all my existing code? Since the answer to that is no you are suggesting either A) we rewrite existing code in Y. Or B) we add resources enough to build new stuff in y while maintaining the existing in x. That becomes an economic question not a technical one. Also what happens when all my highly qualified, experienced, and proficient X leave (cause their careers just came to a dead end) and in left with the thing we actually sell and no one to support it? Swapping y for x sounds like a technical decision, but is far more an economic /existential decision for some part of the business [1]. [1] I'm not talking about the small stuff here - we can easily swap out a text editor, but changing a language or in some cases a database is a big deal.