4 ms·

Interestingly enough, the concern in the early stages is actually not at all about hiring people, it's about personal motivation and technology fit. We dropped

Interestingly enough, the concern in the early stages is actually not at all about hiring people, it's about personal motivation and technology fit. We dropped C for Rust in a systems language context and technologically it was a fantastic choice. I guess some of the benefits of a language switch could have been realised with C++, but since my proficiency with C++ was a few small incremental changes relative to C, I was going to have to learn a lot in either case. Rust held far more appeal and in hindsight has helped us provided fantastic stability in our software whilst developing very rapidly.

kyawzazaw 3y ago
> Interestingly enough, the concern in the early stages is actually not at all about hiring people, it's about personal motivation and technology fit. Is this in regards to running a startup? In that case, I have little to add. But my initial understanding would be, the startup needs to be able to reach product market-fit as quickly as possible. Which is where using a boring technology (to the founders/founding team) would reduce distractions/unknowns. > but since my proficiency with C++ was a few small incremental changes relative to C, I was going to have to learn a lot in either case. Isn't this premise aligned with the philosophy written in the article? 1. You needed to learn something new (so no longer boring, and prime for innovation token) 2. You needed to use something different for a systems language context (innovation token time)