When a new version of a framework or language appears (for example, .NET 3.5, SQL2008), what approach do people come to accept / update?
As a rule, developers will speak as soon as possible (they want it on their resume and in terms of management, giving them what they want, provide an incentive for motivation), but there are often few incentives in the market (few clients require the latest version) and the prospect of costs (retest, training) is often a deterrent.
I especially think about the “current” systems and projects (for example, in-house software) that exist and develop over the years when the “new projects use new technology” approach does not work.
Are people conditional on specific requirements (the need to use a new function, a potential or existing customer that requires its support), do they formally evaluate (in this case, what are the criteria), or are they updated as a question (in this case, when is the cutting edge or blood flow edge)?
Do people really think that not being the latest version of something should be considered a technical duty and managed as such?
Or "if it has not broken, we can’t fix it," a valid approach?
source
share