CV driven development is just as well guarded against by asking someone to justify their technical decisions based on the requirements and how the solution meets them. So "boring" does nothing to further that.

> More, I think you need to consider the context of when this was written. It was a period of rapid innovation/evolution

It's linked today, people feel it's relevant today. This isn't a historic piece about how the tech industry used to be, people reference this post today.

> around this time because teams had taken bets on new tech either they didn't know how to use well or the tech didn't take off and was a dead end.

Yes, they should have had a discussion about their requirements and which technologies would have solved them.

> Then you consider it boring.

Then "boring" is useless and you should just say "I know this technology well and it maps to our use case well" and be able to justify that.

My recollection is that MongoDB was based on CouchDB, except they dispensed with Erlang & JSON and went with more conventional technology.

Not a fan of the phrase "CV driven development". It's a great example of a fundamental attribution error.

In my experience, people choose the wrong tech for a handful of reasons, last of which is to further their career.

Using that phrase also implies that the author's intentions are pure but others aren't. As if you have insight into what motivates them.