The Lede
In the world of AI coding assistants, the allure of novelty is strong. Companies are drawn to the promise of cutting-edge technology, often without fully considering the risks. But as the concept of 'Choose Boring Technology' reminds us, there's a compelling case to be made for established, well-understood technologies over unproven ones. The math is straightforward: boring technologies have known failure modes, well-understood capabilities, and proven operational reliability. When something breaks at 3 AM, you want to be debugging a technology with Stack Overflow answers, not pioneering uncharted territory. This was true in 2015, and it's true today. But the rise of AI coding assistants adds a new wrinkle to this debate, as companies must weigh the benefits of novelty against the risks of unproven technology.
Background & Context
The concept of 'Choose Boring Technology' originated in 2015, when Dan McKinley published an article arguing that companies should focus on established, well-understood technologies rather than exciting but unproven ones. McKinley's core argument was that companies have limited 'innovation tokens' and should spend them strategically on established technologies rather than exciting but unproven ones. This approach allows engineering teams to focus on higher-level questions and avoid the risks associated with unproven technology. The idea has since gained traction, with many companies adopting a 'choose boring technology' approach to reduce complexity and risk. But the rise of AI coding assistants has added a new layer of complexity to this debate, as companies must weigh the benefits of novelty against the risks of unproven technology.
Deep Dive
The rise of AI coding assistants has created a new set of challenges for companies. On the one hand, these tools offer the promise of increased productivity and efficiency. But on the other hand, they also introduce new risks and uncertainties. Companies must carefully weigh the benefits of novelty against the risks of unproven technology. One approach is to focus on established, well-understood technologies rather than exciting but unproven ones. This approach allows engineering teams to focus on higher-level questions and avoid the risks associated with unproven technology. For example, companies like MySQL and PostgreSQL have established themselves as reliable and well-understood technologies. In contrast, AI coding assistants like Opal are still relatively new and unproven. As companies consider the use of AI coding assistants, they must carefully weigh the benefits of novelty against the risks of unproven technology.
Expert Angle
Experts in the field agree that the rise of AI coding assistants has added a new layer of complexity to the debate around 'choose boring technology.' 'The math is straightforward: boring technologies have known failure modes, well-understood capabilities, and proven operational reliability,' says Dan McKinley, author of the original 'Choose Boring Technology' article. 'When something breaks at 3 AM, you want to be debugging a technology with Stack Overflow answers, not pioneering uncharted territory.' McKinley argues that companies should focus on established, well-understood technologies rather than exciting but unproven ones. 'This approach allows engineering teams to focus on higher-level questions and avoid the risks associated with unproven technology,' he says. But others argue that the benefits of novelty outweigh the risks. 'AI coding assistants have the potential to revolutionize the way we work,' says a spokesperson for Motiv, the company behind Opal. 'We're excited to see how companies will use these tools to increase productivity and efficiency.'
What Comes Next
As the debate around 'choose boring technology' continues, companies must carefully weigh the benefits of novelty against the risks of unproven technology. The rise of AI coding assistants has added a new layer of complexity to this debate, but the core principles remain the same. Companies should focus on established, well-understood technologies rather than exciting but unproven ones. This approach allows engineering teams to focus on higher-level questions and avoid the risks associated with unproven technology. As companies consider the use of AI coding assistants, they must carefully weigh the benefits of novelty against the risks of unproven technology. The future of AI coding assistants will depend on how companies navigate this trade-off.