That Which Stays The Same Has Value
I’ve called it “shiny object syndrome”, and in the midst of the operational grind I’ve called it “churn”, but whatever you call it, it’s the tendency in tech to endlessly reach for the next software, language, or what have you, in the belief that What Is Newer Is Better.
That which is newer may possibly be better but there’s an equal chance it’s worse. And there a 100% chance that you will incur a cost to migrate to it. But it’s always sexier to do something edgy and new over sticking with what’s old and… yawn… stable.
Ah, stability. That virtue of a faithful marriage, or piece of architecture. The kind of thing nobody does a movie about, nor pads their resumés with. Resumés only look exciting with the newer and buzzier keywords, advertising a talent willing to take the risk of new frontiers in tech.
How often is the cost of these risks measured soberly against the benefit, the return? Rarely. The technologist of action is rewarded, but the cost of that action is ignored. Can you imagine a carpenter acting similarly, building houses only to tear them down a few years later because there’s a new, better building style now?
Granted, software is more malleable that a building, but nonetheless there is a steep cost of labor to replace it. And replace it. And replace it again. Any length of time in an IT organization, unless the leadership is unusually shrewd and consistent, will fall into this dizzying pattern.
Break free, settle into stability. It’s ok not be trading up all the time.