> It has nothing to do with any objective qualities of platforms.
The problem is, it often does take into account objective qualities.
The downsides of popular platforms are often ignored because they carry with them all the advantages of popularity: good support, a well-established community, a wealth of experienced people you can hire or draw upon.
These are not "objective qualities" of the technology, but real side-effects of popularity. In fact, you could say it's a technology's popularity that fools you into ignoring many of the objective qualities of the platform.
I think part of tech hipsterism (which, let's face it, is what you're talking about) is a rejection of this groupthink, and a return to true technological thinking. It's the ability to say "we don't care what's popular, we're just going to look at what works again and see where we end up." I think this very idea is considered 'cool' in the tech world because we tend to like people who think logically about their problems and don't just blindly follow what people have already done. We like people who look at lesser-used technologies (which all of the "cool" tech you listed above actually are) just on their technical merits alone. This is, perhaps, one reason they're considered cool; because it takes actual thought to break away from simply using what everyone else has used for years.
So I think you have noticed a definite trend, but I don't believe it's as purely social as you imply.
That said, "be aware that the future welfare of your family is relying on your decisions" is an argument that's used in so much Enterprise software that it's almost scary. Often the most popular, most entrenched, least risky, biggest company with the largest pockets wins because the CTO can't be blamed for fucking up that decision. It's an incredible driver of technological stagnation in the Enterprise world. It is great to think through your decisions to their far-reaching impact, but be thankful that all of technology is not driven by that kind of strictness, or we'd never use anything new.
There's a delicate balance between healthy skepticism that comes from experience, and enthusiasm for trying new things.
Going with cool new things for everything is very risky. This is terrible for established businesses, it's great for startups with no legacy and no pressure to maintain inertia. There cultural differences are endemic to the realities of both types of businesses and aren't just the product of politics.
The problem is, it often does take into account objective qualities.
The downsides of popular platforms are often ignored because they carry with them all the advantages of popularity: good support, a well-established community, a wealth of experienced people you can hire or draw upon.
These are not "objective qualities" of the technology, but real side-effects of popularity. In fact, you could say it's a technology's popularity that fools you into ignoring many of the objective qualities of the platform.
I think part of tech hipsterism (which, let's face it, is what you're talking about) is a rejection of this groupthink, and a return to true technological thinking. It's the ability to say "we don't care what's popular, we're just going to look at what works again and see where we end up." I think this very idea is considered 'cool' in the tech world because we tend to like people who think logically about their problems and don't just blindly follow what people have already done. We like people who look at lesser-used technologies (which all of the "cool" tech you listed above actually are) just on their technical merits alone. This is, perhaps, one reason they're considered cool; because it takes actual thought to break away from simply using what everyone else has used for years.
So I think you have noticed a definite trend, but I don't believe it's as purely social as you imply.
That said, "be aware that the future welfare of your family is relying on your decisions" is an argument that's used in so much Enterprise software that it's almost scary. Often the most popular, most entrenched, least risky, biggest company with the largest pockets wins because the CTO can't be blamed for fucking up that decision. It's an incredible driver of technological stagnation in the Enterprise world. It is great to think through your decisions to their far-reaching impact, but be thankful that all of technology is not driven by that kind of strictness, or we'd never use anything new.