My head is nodding at the intention here, but it's important to remember this reactionary attitude can be damaging as well. That is missing from the post.<p>Specifically, reactionary conservatism about tools and services can be a competitive disadvantage.<p>In several workplaces I have seen this attitude co-mingle with pride in original code, and result in a counter-productive NIH (Not Invented Here)[0] attitude (reinventing wheels). Macho/heroism makes it worse.<p>While trend-following can be inefficient, if the engineers are both excited and humble and ready to weigh many trade-offs, this inefficiency might be "cheaper" than reinventing wheels for all problems.<p>Cue platitude: it takes balance :)<p>[0]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here</a><p>---------------------------------------------------------<p>EDIT:<p>To clarify I'm talking especially about _uninteresting problems,_ for which there may be an obvious off-the-shelf solution, such as when I've seen engineers invent a build system from scratch (and then cost _lots_ over years as that custom thing needs maintenance) ... when their needs could have been met by the language's standard tooling and using its plugin architecture.<p>Or, when "just use sticky notes and a whiteboard" gets so stubborn that a growing team stays in chaos for lack of organization.<p>On the other hand, it is quite bad when trend-following causes not just churn (switching tools), but overkill that introduces tons of cost and risk. i.e. distributed systems where you didn't need one. Relevant on this point: You Are Not Google by Ozan Onay <a href="https://blog.bradfieldcs.com/you-are-not-google-84912cf44afb" rel="nofollow">https://blog.bradfieldcs.com/you-are-not-google-84912cf44afb</a>