# Less Boring Technology > The phrase "boring technology" comes from Dan McKinley's 2015 article "Choose Boring Technology." I like "less boring technology." The phrase "boring technology" comes from 's 2015 article "[Choose Boring Technology](https://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology)." I like "less boring technology." ## Summary of "Choosing Boring Technology" What is boring tech? Not everything old and boring is useful. What the author means by "boring technology" is "old and serviceable technology." > What counts as boring? That's a little tricky. "Boring" should not be conflated with "bad." There is technology out there that is both boring and bad. You should not use any of that. But there are many choices of technology that are boring and good, or at least good enough. is boring. [Postgres](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/PostgreSQL.txt) is boring. is boring. [Python](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Python.txt) is boring. is boring. is boring. is boring. Why is it good to choose boring technology? > The nice thing about boringness (so constrained) is that the capabilities of these things are well understood. But more importantly, their failure modes are well understood. Meanwhile, what technologies the company has already adopted is also an important consideration. It is important to make as much effort as possible to solve problems within the set of technologies that have already been adopted and are already in use. > Adding technology to your company comes with a cost…. If we're already using , adding [Python](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Python.txt) to the mix doesn't feel sensible because the resulting complexity would outweigh Python's marginal utility. Sometimes you do have to introduce new technology. But whether to introduce new technology should always be decided by conservative standards. > Taking this reasoning to its reductio ad absurdum would mean picking [Java](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Java.txt), and then trying to implement a website without using anything else at all. And that would be crazy. You need some means to add things to your toolbox. ## "Boringness" is a property in the relationship between technology and people From here on, my thoughts. Whether something is "boring" is not a property of the technology itself. It is more useful to think of whether a technology is familiar and stable as a property that lies not in the technology itself but in the relationship between the technology and people (or an organization) (similar to [affordance](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Affordance.txt)). From this perspective, it is also important that if you avoid some technology simply because it is "not boring," that has something of the character of a in that it leads to using it even less as a result. ## Improving productivity and improving capabilities From the perspective of the dilemma between improving productivity and improving capabilities ([Exploration-exploitation dilemma](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Exploration-exploitation%20dilemma.txt)), 's article mainly focuses on productivity (and stability). Given that he assigns 3 points for "innovation points," and that in the latter half of the article he says that sometimes new technology should be introduced, he does briefly mention the importance of exploration (or capability-building), but that is not the article's focus. I think it is important to consider both perspectives appropriately depending on the situation. If immediate productivity or stability is important, I go with familiar and stable technology (boring technology); if the situation allows for risk-taking, I tend to deliberately use some newer technology for the sake of learning. Let's keep in mind that even in the original article, he starts by assigning 3 points to "innovation points." What matters is adjusting the balance between exploration and exploitation appropriately depending on the situation (). - A perspective that overemphasizes "boring technology" can hinder the improvement of capabilities in organizations and individuals, while a perspective that overemphasizes "new technology" can be harmful to and stability. - Capability improvement is also limited if there is no product/service creating real business value, and capability improvement is also limited if one becomes too immersed only in building products (productivity and stability). ## Deliberately making an effort for "exploration" Even so, I try to be a bit more biased toward exploration. My reasons are these. - **Path dependence**: once the share of exploration decreases and you begin doing a lot of exploitation, dependence on that direction gradually forms like a habit, and it becomes hard to reverse. - **Increase in conscientiousness**: according to research in [personality psychology](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Personality%20psychology.txt), as people age they tend to gradually become more conscientious ([Big-5](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Big%20Five%20personality%20traits.txt) conscientiousness). In other words, the tendency to do less exploration naturally increases. - **Increase in **: human life expectancy is steadily increasing. If you're lucky, may increase too. In other words, you may have more attempts left than you think. For a more detailed discussion, see [Exploration Over Exploitation](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Exploration%20over%20exploitation.txt). ## If you are still young or inexperienced If you are still young, or if it hasn't been long since you entered this field(?), then it is all the more important to increase the share of exploration. I think it is good to experience various side projects, deliberately use technologies you have not tried before (but for efficient learning to happen, you should not change too many things at once), meet a variety of people, and encounter multiple business domains. Of course, technology is not the only axis of "exploration." Experience building and operating services/products that are producing meaningful business results is also one axis of "exploration," so "productivity and stability" are just as important as "technical exploration and experimentation." Therefore, a suitable level of "less boring" technology seems good.