On the contrary, efficiency is quantifiable. As is determining whether or not something is broken or prone to breaking. I.E. Brittleness becomes obvious under heavy load.
This isn't a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" either. You push things to the breaking point and see if that's projected in your growth (maybe a bit beyond what's projected), but maintainability and efficiency don't hinge on what's new. It hinges on what works and if what works is what you have, you don't waste time with new things.
But back to the point... You learn "new" things when you figure existing things aren't up to the task or you try to see if amending x will get you further. y Is still not necessary if it will.
Contrary to what? I said as much. The problem is that you need to quantify that efficiency. You can't just say "x is efficient."
> But if you're running a business with "x" which has worked efficiently for years and isn't broken, "y" is not necessary.
So, x has worked efficiently for years? Based on what? How are you quantifying that? And how can you say it's efficient without having some yardstick to measure against? By not looking at other technologies, you can't really say whether it is still efficient or not.
This isn't a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" either. You push things to the breaking point and see if that's projected in your growth (maybe a bit beyond what's projected), but maintainability and efficiency don't hinge on what's new. It hinges on what works and if what works is what you have, you don't waste time with new things.
But back to the point... You learn "new" things when you figure existing things aren't up to the task or you try to see if amending x will get you further. y Is still not necessary if it will.