While broadly the OP is fully correct,
actually the statement
> Technology Doesn’t Matter
is over stated.
First, to be more clear, we need to
consider what we mean by technology:
In the OP, an example is some
software framework -- for that, sure,
especially in the context of the
OP, likely such technology "doesn't matter".
Why? In terms from 100,000 feet up,
we're still talking, say,
Turing machine equivalent so that
we should still be able to get the
software written without some
particular framework.
And, following the OP where it recommended
staying with the technology the team
already knew, the new technology
likely will not be much or any more
effective, efficient, etc., at least in the short term,
for the
project at hand.
But, I believe that the OP is missing
an important point, one that, in my opinion
(IMO), your mileage may vary (YMMV),
is too often missed:
First, for context, assume that the project
is to solve a problem where
a good solution will be quite valuable
but apparently also quite challenging
technically. Or, the nature of the
challenge is, say, "How the heck
is it even possible to do that?".
Second, let's focus on just the
technical part of the solution,
that is, on the challenge:
For this focus, let's have an example
where the technology very much did
matter.
Ike wanted some pictures. The
U-2 reconnaissance airplane was too slow and too low,
and, thus, too vulnerable to being shot down,
and he needed a plane that
would fly higher and faster, enough
of both so that
it would be much more difficult to shoot down.
So, flying at 80,000+ feet at Mach 3.0+
should suffice. And, by the way, need
range 2000+ miles without refueling.
A challenge: Put two really large
turbojet engines in an otherwise really small
airplane and can get thrust enough
for Mach 3.0+, but some aerodynamics
says that at such speeds the air
into the engine, as it slows down to
subsonic speed as needed
by the compressor stage,
can get so hot it will cause
major parts of the engine to
overheat, i.e., burn out.
There was at one time at least
one MIG 25 pilot who
could confirm this point.
Relevant technology:
(1) There was a unit
of Pratt and Whitney
in Florida that considered
such jet engine problems and
had a bright idea:
At Mach 2.5+ or so,
don't really need the
turbojet compressor.
Instead, treat the engine
just as a ram jet.
So, take the input air,
let it bypass the
usual compressor and turbine
stages, let it enter at essentially the
usual afterburner stage,
add fuel, and go.
Bright idea.
And, yes, they made it work.
(2) At Mach 3.0+, even at 80,000 feet,
the friction, etc., of the air
gets the surface of the airplane
hot. So, need, say,
stainless steel or titanium.
The MIG 25 used stainless steel.
Well, at Lockheed, Kelly Johnson
considered the Pratt and Whitney
engine and titanium and designed
and built a few dozen of the
the SR-71s;
Ike got his pictures;
and no SR-71 was lost to
enemy action.
So, the engine and the
titanium were technology
that very much did "matter".
And there are more examples
from the past, and there may
be more examples in the future,
that is, where technology
very much does "matter".
Not all possibly relevant technology,
even for software projects,
is just software frameworks, etc.
as considered in the OP.
> Technology Doesn’t Matter
is over stated.
First, to be more clear, we need to consider what we mean by technology: In the OP, an example is some software framework -- for that, sure, especially in the context of the OP, likely such technology "doesn't matter". Why? In terms from 100,000 feet up, we're still talking, say, Turing machine equivalent so that we should still be able to get the software written without some particular framework. And, following the OP where it recommended staying with the technology the team already knew, the new technology likely will not be much or any more effective, efficient, etc., at least in the short term, for the project at hand.
But, I believe that the OP is missing an important point, one that, in my opinion (IMO), your mileage may vary (YMMV), is too often missed:
First, for context, assume that the project is to solve a problem where a good solution will be quite valuable but apparently also quite challenging technically. Or, the nature of the challenge is, say, "How the heck is it even possible to do that?".
Second, let's focus on just the technical part of the solution, that is, on the challenge:
For this focus, let's have an example where the technology very much did matter.
Ike wanted some pictures. The U-2 reconnaissance airplane was too slow and too low, and, thus, too vulnerable to being shot down, and he needed a plane that would fly higher and faster, enough of both so that it would be much more difficult to shoot down.
So, flying at 80,000+ feet at Mach 3.0+ should suffice. And, by the way, need range 2000+ miles without refueling.
A challenge: Put two really large turbojet engines in an otherwise really small airplane and can get thrust enough for Mach 3.0+, but some aerodynamics says that at such speeds the air into the engine, as it slows down to subsonic speed as needed by the compressor stage, can get so hot it will cause major parts of the engine to overheat, i.e., burn out. There was at one time at least one MIG 25 pilot who could confirm this point.
Relevant technology:
(1) There was a unit of Pratt and Whitney in Florida that considered such jet engine problems and had a bright idea: At Mach 2.5+ or so, don't really need the turbojet compressor. Instead, treat the engine just as a ram jet. So, take the input air, let it bypass the usual compressor and turbine stages, let it enter at essentially the usual afterburner stage, add fuel, and go. Bright idea. And, yes, they made it work.
(2) At Mach 3.0+, even at 80,000 feet, the friction, etc., of the air gets the surface of the airplane hot. So, need, say, stainless steel or titanium. The MIG 25 used stainless steel.
Well, at Lockheed, Kelly Johnson considered the Pratt and Whitney engine and titanium and designed and built a few dozen of the the SR-71s; Ike got his pictures; and no SR-71 was lost to enemy action.
So, the engine and the titanium were technology that very much did "matter".
And there are more examples from the past, and there may be more examples in the future, that is, where technology very much does "matter".
Not all possibly relevant technology, even for software projects, is just software frameworks, etc. as considered in the OP.