We've got this interesting situation. I see two distinct camps at work. One that wants to experiment with new frameworks/technologies to address a wide range of problems (from code quality and defect rate to security and performance issues), and another camp that wants to stop wasting time on new untested tech/frameworks and fix them with minimal changes to what we've already built.

Each camp is a mix of of smart/clueless engineers and managers.

Camp 'change' argues that its easier to leverage advancements in new tech to fix our bigger problems and fix the small ones in parallel. It accuses the other camp of being too lazy.

Camp 'dont change' argues there is no good way to estimate and limit what issues the new tech/framework will introduce. It feels its better to fix the problems with what we have by tweaking processes and educating engineers/operators. It accuses the other camp of being led off path with 'shiny' new things and that they'll jump ship at the fist sign of trouble.

A few of us engineers observing this circus began evaluating some frameworks/libraries individually. It got us to a point where we now have diverging views amongst ourselves. E.g. using existing SQL db Vs. adding Cassandra for timeseries, existing AngularJS,Polymer1.0 UI app vs new UI in React, split into 'micro' services V/s. consolidate services etc. You get where this is going.

I feel we're not the first ones to go through this but I don't know enough people to talk to about this. Its part political and part technical, I'm interested in the tech aspect, though getting an insight into the political side would be interesting. Reaching out to the wise and experienced folks on HN on whether this is a solvable problem or my time is better spent on fixable things.