Compare the truths outlined here: "...for many businesses, sticking with what they have is the cheapest choice and best ROI" with Rands' comments on tool cruft.
Of course, engineers aren't businesses. But they operate under some of the same constraints--deadlines, limited money, etc. Despite what Rands says, there's a balance to be struck between the new and the old. Of course, most folks, including myself, tend to lean towards the old and the known because it feels safer. But the known is (often) safer. Dion talks about it here and likewise doesn't come to any conclusions.
I don't want to sound like an old fogey, but I've been burned before in the past by short deadlines, new technologies and inexperienced users (of which I was one). I'm looking at Spring, having heard it praised to the sky, and want to use it on my next project. (Spring, incidentally, reminds me of a supercharged version of ATG's Nucleus; what's old is new again.) New tech is great, but not because it's new. And old tech is safe, but not because it's old. Each of these is appropriate when it's the right tool for the job, but it's hard to divorce that choice from my kneed jerk reactions and emotions--that's what methods like ROI and research are designed to do.
Posted by moore at December 24, 2004 09:31 AM