4 ms·
This is a false dichotomy though. Your comment makes it sound like the only options are to keep using the same tech stack for 30 years or to "race" to adopt the
by tdeck 4y ago
This is a false dichotomy though. Your comment makes it sound like the only options are to keep using the same tech stack for 30 years or to "race" to adopt the "newest fad". What about switching from a moribund 30 year old technology to a mature 5-10 year old technology every now and then, based on an assessment of the very real drawbacks of living in the past. Security is one of the biggest problems with outdated software that many people are only too happy to ignore.
- wellokthen2 4y agoProtip: you're much better off writing something in straight C than in [latest fad language du jour]
- cestith 4y agoSwitching wholesale is often detrimental itself. Often the best thing is to leverage new tools for new development, and as certain older parts of your stack are retired move those from the legacy technology to something more modern. If something's getting so old that you're getting short on people who understand it, that part becomes more urgent to move to the newer technology. It doesn't kill a business to have two or even three generations of tech spread across teams so long as it's manageable. An older tech stack doesn't mean never updating the system. either. Perl still gets updates. Linux distros still get updates. In fact, often a newer piece of software will introduce bugs including security bugs that were fixed in older software long ago. All things being equal, though, using a language with better string handling and memory safety can be a boon if your old stuff is in something like C.