> but interesting tech becomes interesting because it (purports to be) a better way of solving problems than whatever the old way was.
You would think so, but this is wrong for the same reason that "the most popular product is probably the best product" is wrong.
Quality doesn't determine who wins. It's a factor but not the factor. In the case of programming languages in particular, tribalism, new-and-shiny syndrome, and marketing are all probably more important.
Well, "most popular" is an objective category, whereas "interesting" is not, so it's really up to the individual to determine what is and isn't interesting.
> so it's really up to the individual to determine what is and isn't interesting.
True. The claim I'm making is that what people think is "interesting" is usually (ofc not always) determined by the factors I mentioned, rather than being informed by deep experience with and knowledge of the relevant "prior art".
That is, the new framework or database seems "interesting" to you (the general you) because there are so many articles on HN about it, everyone is talking about, Facebook is using it, etc. Not because you are familiar with similar databases in this space, have specific complaints about them based on experience, and know that this new database has specific features purporting to address them, etc.
You would think so, but this is wrong for the same reason that "the most popular product is probably the best product" is wrong.
Quality doesn't determine who wins. It's a factor but not the factor. In the case of programming languages in particular, tribalism, new-and-shiny syndrome, and marketing are all probably more important.