[catshirt]

maintaining software is a real thing.

for the majority of cases i've seen, these arguments are to save developers time and the company money.

my gut & feelies tell me there is truth to "it doesn't really matter what technologies you use" but my brain and experience tell me that is objectively false.

[nostrademons]

The reason "it doesn't matter what technologies you use" is because successful software gets rewritten multiple times anyway.

It matters a lot eventually, but having an "eventually" to worry about is a nice problem to have.

(There's also a big perspective difference between being an entrepreneur writing initial code for a project vs. an engineer hired to maintain & grow that code. Code quality, architecture, and technology choice matters a lot to an engineer who will be working with it directly. It matters a lot less to a business that can swap out engineers until they find ones who enjoy working on that codebase. The fact that you even have money to hire engineers usually indicates that the existing code is getting the job done. The business only gets screwed when the code quality is so bad that nobody can make sense of it, and the environment changes in a way that requires modifications.)

[catshirt]

but, there are many instances where software would not get rewritten with proper technical foresight in the first place.

i take your point none the less- there are contexts where it doesn't matter.