I think boring is mostly a bad terminology for stable in these sort of arguments. Which means you get to actually focus on doing work. This author is apparently

I think boring is mostly a bad terminology for stable in these sort of arguments. Which means you get to actually focus on doing work. This author is apparently a fan of Go as an example of what they probably consider a “boring” technology and from that article it seems they came from Python. I think that speaks volumes about how they work with technologies that don’t change very often, because they are designed to be simple to use. Well maybe not Python if you allow it to go crazy, but if you actually know the difference between looping over a List and using a generator you probably do some very boring Python. I think it’s similar to why a lot of places use Ruby on Rails, Django and the likes. They work, and they work well. It’s why people use Debian. It’s to lead relatively uneventful lives as far as the underlying tech goes, which is “boring”. In my experience you’ll find far less attachment to specific technologies in this crowd of people. They like their stable tools but they won’t preach to you about a specific tool, more so about how choosing something that is simple to work with because it just works is nice. We do it in practice, we use C and we didn’t go onboard with Rust. We use a little Zig but only when it’s completely interoperable with C. In 5-10 years when Rust or Zig are more mature (and boring) we may pick them up again. Well I probably won’t be here by then but I’m sure you know what I mean. Until they get boring, however, we’re just going to use C. I don’t think C is better than Rust and I don’t think you should necessarily copy us, but for us C is “boring” and Rust isn’t.