I got the same feeling as you niuzeta, and I feel the article may be getting judged a little too harshly (although I find the assertion of this being the best q

I got the same feeling as you niuzeta, and I feel the article may be getting judged a little too harshly (although I find the assertion of this being the best quality in a developer a little too absolute for my tastes). I think the author stated in the article that the fictional character Jack ".. makes a point of starting each project with at least three new technologies." I personally understand this as three new technologies Jack has not previously worked with, which should be a definite indication of some risk/unknown factors. Plus given the context of this fictional scenario, it seems unlikely that other developers associated with the project/company know them. Now if everyone were so conservative that they'd never try anything new, there would never be any progress, but I think the point of the article is that something isn't better, just because it is new. In fact, to me the rings of the "worse is better" philosophy which I didn't think was taboo in any way here on HN :-) Finally I'd like to add that the author didn't say this was a "maintenance nightmare", he did however say the solution was elegant, scalable and totally unmaintainable.