3 ms·
If you work on sufficiently large projects or in enterprise there's a high cost in switching stacks even if a particular project could be done better in a diffe
by elemeno 14y ago
If you work on sufficiently large projects or in enterprise there's a high cost in switching stacks even if a particular project could be done better in a different technology. When all your software runs on the same stack, or on a limited number of stacks, there's less friction - it's easier for people to move between stacks, it's easier for different projects to work together, it's easier to use all the libraries which have already been written etc.
- _delirium 14y agoEven as an individual there's considerable friction in switching imo, though it's not as insurmountable, and comes with the added benefit/fun of learning something new. The conceptual part is not that bad, and is the most interesting: learning a new language/approach/framework that takes a new general approach to things, e.g. learning a functional language for the first time. But there's a lot of more "accidental" knowledge that takes a long time to pick up and has more to do with becoming familiar with a language's/framework's idioms, warts, best practices, common pitfalls, good solutions to those pitfalls, etc. Particularly true for debugging, at least for me. I'm a lot faster at debugging in settings where I've accumulated a lot of experience, just because there are a lot more cases where I instantly recognize exactly what's happening and how to fix it.