I would only add "stable" to what "boring" tech is. Notably, though, not "stable" as in "doesn't crash." But more as in "doesn't change."
I think you typically see this with older, established, things. But there is nothing guaranteeing it. And, indeed, it is often the result of specific action on the stewards of a technology.
This can often be couched in terms of backwards compatibility. Which is a clear action one can pursue to get stability. However, it can also be seen in greatly limiting scope. As an example, we love talking about scale, but that doesn't mean you have to design and build for scale you will never see.
Not all boring tech doesn't change. Rails has been around for 20 years now and actually sees a great deal of change. There are many new and better ways to solve problems in the framework with each release.
I think it’s kind of moot to argue of over the definition, because in practice “boring” just means that someone likes something. Similar to other terms like, “best practices,” the term is now vapid. It might have at one time meant something, but is now just synonymous with “I like this.”
If you like something it’s a “best practice.” If you don’t, it’s an “anti-pattern.” If you are used to something and like it, it’s “boring.” If you are not used to something and expect you won’t like it, it’s a “shiny object.”
IME, these sorts of terms are not helpful when discussing tech. They gloss over all the details. IMO its better to recognize the various tradeoffs all languages and tools make and discuss those specifically, as these sorts of labels are almost always used an excuse to not do that.
Apologies on missing this yesterday. I would add that saying it is "boring" with regards to "stability" means I also trust that what I learned about it last year is largely still relevant today. May not be cutting edge relevant, but is unlikely to bite me by being flat out wrong.
"Boring" works in this regard because you are saying there is not a lot of activity behind the scenes on it. Most of the work is spent doing the "boring" parts of the job for most of us. Documentation and testing.
Rails isn't boring by any definition, it's full of surprises, metaprogramming magic and DSLs and a culture that hates code comments. Plus a community that keeps changing best practices every other year.
Which doesn't mean it's bad or anything. But "boring" shouldn't be redefined to "something I like" or "something I make money with".
I think you typically see this with older, established, things. But there is nothing guaranteeing it. And, indeed, it is often the result of specific action on the stewards of a technology.
This can often be couched in terms of backwards compatibility. Which is a clear action one can pursue to get stability. However, it can also be seen in greatly limiting scope. As an example, we love talking about scale, but that doesn't mean you have to design and build for scale you will never see.