[jonathanlydall]

Lack of experience is a perfectly valid and often very rationale reason for something being a bad choice, especially when considering upskilling costs and possible challenges in finding new hires proficient in the chosen technology.

The new technology needs to be sufficiently better than the existing to justify the investment or ongoing additional cost, and not just “has more features”, it should be solving problems which may otherwise not be reasonably solvable.

In a past job we had an incident where a dev had unilaterally decided to develop parts of a .NET project in F#, when the contract was for a C# project to be ultimately handed over to the client.

This was a run of mill back-end API, there were no interesting requirements that could possibly justify saddling the client with a need to hire for a relatively niche language.

The dev in question had this general view that F# was an underrated language and technically better than C# and if other devs would just give it a chance, they’d see for themselves.

What they totally ignored is that hiring C# devs is super easy here, F# though, not so much.