> When someone comes at your approach wielding a slogan, be skeptical.
I do agree. Although the point of the article is to _lean_ more on "boring technology" side of, and paying extra effort when considering adopting newest flashy things.
Having read the article 3-4 time in the last years, I don't think they say "don't use new things", just "not too many new things at the same time"
Perhaps the title should be “err on the side of boring technologies”, although I don’t even agree with that. The right technologies for a project are the ones you deem to be right, given appropriate consideration of many factors. Your project may really need to use all beta release software, cause maybe it just does.
Let's say you've given it the proper consideration, and it's clear beyond the smell of subjectivity that it needs to be flashy stuff, go for it. The point is that this is often not the case, and the argument is to go with boring then.
I would agree that we're talking about the same thing, really:
> The right technologies for a project are the ones you deem to be right, given appropriate consideration of many factors
It's _usually_ difficult to take into consideration all the factors of a new flashy thing. The unknown unknowns. Thus _maybe_ choosing a trendy set of technologies might indicate that the exercise of balance and consideration you were commenting and that I do agree with 100%, has not been as honest as possible.
I do agree. Although the point of the article is to _lean_ more on "boring technology" side of, and paying extra effort when considering adopting newest flashy things.
Having read the article 3-4 time in the last years, I don't think they say "don't use new things", just "not too many new things at the same time"