[matt_craig]

I like the suggestion of having an explicit hard requirement that employees be willing to use and engage with the existing tech stack. It makes it easier to point to the requirements and say “you signed up for this”.

I’m surprised, perhaps naively so, that devs apply for roles featuring languages they actively don’t like (or even hate).

What’s more understandable is a dev picking up a new language/tech stack on a job and discovering they don’t like it. (In that case they still shouldn’t actively fight against it, unless it’s actually detrimental to the company’s progress.)

[teh_klev]

> devs apply for roles featuring languages they actively don’t like

Then that's their problem, not the employer's fault. If you know what stack is being used when applying for a job, and you despise said development stack, then why apply for the job?

But there are other developers out there who aren't that fussed about what development stack they might be working with. Often there are other attractions to the role such as compensation, paid time off, etc.

> What’s more understandable is a dev picking up a new language/tech stack on a job and discovering they don’t like it.

This happened to me once, but I held my nose and just got on with the job.

[julik]

> then why apply for the job?

Opportunism perhaps? "...once they fire all these annoying legacy senior people we can redo everything..." As well as going down in the level of the joint (going from an A-league startup to a B-league startup) in the hope of more authority and ability to determine the choice of tech?

[julik]

This.