Comment by pxc

> there's obviously value in having your company/team use well-known languages and tools

Sure. I never said this desire on the part of management is generally irrational.

It's just that this (often rational) preference for "safe bets" leads to ossification and repetition. It's self-reinforcing and eventually becomes disconnected from the inherent virtues or vices involved in the thing chosen.

If you enjoy participating in this network effect as a hiring manager or tech lead or whatever, or feel it's part of your duty as an ROI-maximizer, that's fine. You're probably right.

It just seems clear that when such feedback loops are strong and risk aversion is high, it leaves little room for new languages to break into the "market" by competing on their intrinsic merits. So when that happens, it'll coincide with times and places of relatively high industry optimism and developer freedom.

> Same as using open standards

Open standards are about interoperability and user freedom, and don't really have anything to do with novelty or popularity.

> Same as using [...] well-known design patterns

A common pattern in designs of solutions for common problems that is counterproductive, or even just not very effective, is called an "anti-pattern". The honorific "design pattern" is reserved for patterns that are Actually Good™ in some way that would hold true even if no one knew them.

Consequently, "this design pattern isn't well known" just means "this solution is highly effective for addressing a common problem, but isn't very famous".

"Use well-known design patterns" is at least as much about choosing things because they're elegant, composable, flexible, performant, etc., as it is about choosing them because they're famous— hopefully much more so.