|
|
|
|
|
|
by danjac
2033 days ago
|
|
|
Productivity is relative. A tech stack that might give you some easy early gains might fail you at 3 a.m. when the site's down and you have no idea how to fix it. Your code might contain some basic security errors that you would have avoided had you gone with a stable, vetted framework, and now hackers have all your customer data (see for example Parler). Recruitment in tech X is much harder because there's nobody around with decent experience in it. These are all problems that you really don't want when your focus needs to be on the business. By all means adopt new tech where there is a real business need, and by all means avoid obsolete tech where you can, but be wary of the siren call of the cool tech stack when you're starting a new company. |
|
|
On the flip side, stable and vetted popular frameworks also have security problems; and although these problems may be less likely, they are more bad people trying to break them, because when they do, the win is really big. E.g. Windows vs Linux viruses / trojans - I'm not sure if Linux is so much more secure to justify the difference.
Also new tech stacks typically evolve faster and are quicker to fix bugs. It is much faster to fix a problem in a young, less complex product, without having to deal with things like technical debt, backwards compatibility with millions of apps or endless discussions between committers about how it should be fixed.