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.

2 thoughts on “New vs old technologies

  1. Thomas Ciro says:

    i belive personally that new technology is better then old technology reasons for my belief is the cpu is way better then the type writer yea people have been burned by new technology such as virusis but that is the users fault if you think bout old technology i think crappy polaroids and block cell phones and huge blocked (tubes) (tv) these are just some short simple reasons of why new is better then old

  2. berrni says:

    The deadline issue is sooo true…I often wonder when using the latest technology versus my own hand writing, whether I am doing my boss
    justice if I cna’t can’t get the computer to cooperate with me…
    All inall the new tech is better

Comments are closed.


© Moore Consulting, 2003-2019