[ratww]

The issue is rarely the age of the codebase or the tech stack, but rather the maintainability and quality of the code.

Due to many factors, the age of the codebase is normally inversely proportional to its code quality. Especially codebases in fields where trends change fast, like web technology.

Therefore, if you're a talented engineer able to work in multiple technologies you'll certainly prefer to work on something that has less chances of making you want to tear your hair out.

[TedDoesntTalk]

> the age of the codebase is normally inversely proportional to its code quality.

What??? You are saying that simply because a code base is old, it is of poor quality. There are numerous public examples contradicting this: Linux, many Apache projects such as httpd, etc.

I emphatically disagree and would like to know why you think that.

[ratww]

I said "normally". I don't think anyone considers Linux or httpd "old tech", neither they are "legacy software" that experienced developers are running away from. C might be old as a language, but there are still modern things being built with it. I also said that the issue is not the age itself or the tech stack.

[TedDoesntTalk]

You didn't use the word legacy in your post. You used the word old. Quite different. Something can be old and still maintained (httpd, etc).