Ever left a company because of tech stack direction?

[halfmatthalfcat]

I recently joined a company that, during the interview process, was reassessing their tech stack and planning to shift in a different direction, both front and backend. I was hired to help with that.

During the interview process, we talked about future state architecture and it sounded like they wanted to move into exciting directions.

Alas, months into the job, they’ve decided to move toward more legacy frameworks and less-exciting languages for business reasons (hirability, establishes technologies, etc). I understand the decision but feel like it won’t help forward me career like I thought it would have prior to joining.

Has anybody else experienced this and did you end up staying with the company or move on?

[gregjor]

No. If a candidate gave that as their main reason for changing jobs I would take it as a bad sign.

Companies hire people to solve business problems and add value, not so they can use their preferred languages or tools. Your “stack” counts for a lot less than what you’ve accomplished. A professional programmer resume lists accomplishments in terms of problems solved and value added, not tech “skills” in terms of languages and frameworks.

Learning a business domain, solving real problems, working with a team, and understanding trade-offs count for more for your career growth.

[ianamartin]

Honestly, the tech stack is the last thing I consider about a job--within reason. I wouldn't consider a job where the decision was to, say, move towards Flash, or something. But even that would be as much about the other things I care about as Flash specifically.

The most important parts of a job are the team you're working with and direct management you have and the kinds of problems you get to solve.

If those things are all good, the specific stack doesn't matter. You'll grow and develop as a technologist, and hopefully in a sustainable way. As long as the choice is defensible, I wouldn't care about it at all. If it's completely idiotic (like Flash would be today), then that says a lot about the quality of management and team you'll be working with.

On the face of it, it may not be a big deal. But one thing to be wary of is a bait and switch. If you were specifically hired to do something that was a big part of your decision to take the job, and then all of that goes away, that's a bit of a flag, regardless of how acceptable a legacy decision might be on its own.

I would try and figure out that piece of the puzzle: did the hiring manager manipulate you to get you to take the job? OR was this a decision that was still largely in progress and you're coming to grips with some slightly wishful thinking?

One of those is a legitimate problem. The other is possibly some excitement and enthusiasm that was a little misplaced.