3 ms·
> There’s no obvious reason for this, other than a belief that if something can be done with 50 year old technology, it should be. While past performance is n
by antod 4y ago
> There’s no obvious reason for this, other than a belief that if something can be done with 50 year old technology, it should be.
While past performance is no predictor of future performance, on the face of it I'm likely to bet on the stability and longevity of the classic time tested technology outlasting that of the newer technology. Especially if the newer one relies on specific 3rd party services.
- antod 4y agoTo clarify, how you build it and how you host it are two different questions with different constraints. eg the trade offs of the new might be weighted differently than the old as they apply to building vs hosting. Your build breaking due to stack changes is a different PITA than a security vuln in the hosting. Although the build might break more often due to churn in the new fangled stuff, you might trade that off for the less hands-on hosting maintenance. But for another trade-off, the old stuff is far less service dependent, so less work to migrate if you need to change service providers. Engineering is trade-offs, and decisions are made based on assigned weightings of various factors. The weightings are subject to bias though and thus always personal.