[PommeDeTerre]

Software doesn't exist in a vacuum. It often has a lifespan far in excess of the involvement of the original developers. It can also have a very serious impact upon its users, its subsequent maintainers, and any organizations they may belong to.

I could not care any less if hobbyist developers want to use Ruby on Rails, JavaScript and NoSQL for own their personal projects that nobody else ever uses or has to maintain.

It's a different situation when such objectively-flawed technologies are used beyond that, however.

The broken software you or others write today using such horrid technologies may very well end up being inherited and maintained by me or one of my teams later on. We won't be happy when we have to waste time, effort, money and opportunity dealing with it and its flaws.

There are numerous, far better options out there. There are just no excuses for using poor technologies these days.

[sanderjd]

Your goal of seeing higher adoption of technologies you like and lower adoption of those you don't makes sense but your approach is misguided. I rarely see you speak positively of technologies you like, rather than negatively of those you don't. I rarely see you reasonably describe the shortcomings of technologies you don't like from a place of apparent expertise, rather than making ungrounded categorical statements ("hobbyist", "objectively-flawed", "horrid", "poor") about technologies that it doesn't seem like you have bothered learning about in any depth except that necessary to confirm your biases.

Plenty of people would prefer to inherit my broken software using horrid technologies than your broken software using different horrid technologies, and vice-versa. This unnecessary us-versus-them-ism in technology drives me crazy.