I largely agree with you, that rather than introducing Rust into your workplace it's easier to change workplaces.
I currently work in a Go shop. Why Go? Did it win some business value delivering contest? I don't think so, it's just the initial team lead liked Go the most of the languages they knew and made everyone else learn it.
If you read my comment history you'll see I think Go is a mediocre choice. But, it's here to stay in this company and it doesn't matter what new language comes along it won't have the inertia or acceptance of the status quo language. The expected improvement has to be large enough to overcome the associated costs to sell the business case.
This idea of the status quo being somewhat arbitrary, and difficult to change, applies to more than just languages. It applies to everything else, your architecture, your work processes, your culture. A blueprint is set early on by some founding members, and perpetuated potentially forever.
In this world, rather than trying to change a company you change employers. Innovation is change, and to achieve that the individual changes, but leaves their company to remain the same.
Personally, I seek to improve in what I do, to innovate. And I think what we do can be done better and that the tools and systems in-place play a part in that. But will I introduce them at my workplace?
Perhaps not, I think I'll find a new job, and both my old and next company can pay the rather high costs of someone leaving and someone joining. This makes me a little sad, since I like my company and leaving would be a significant amount of institutional knowledge walking out the door.
> I currently work in a Go shop. Why Go? Did it win some business value delivering contest? I don't think so, it's just the initial team lead liked Go the most of the languages they knew and made everyone else learn it.
By this logic either language keep changing when new people join and desire some different language.
> This makes me a little sad, since I like my company and leaving would be a significant amount of institutional knowledge walking out the door.
You shouldn't be. If company you are leaving is any good they would have documented important stuff. If not, they'll get what they deserve. Better to join place where you are part / lead of initial team. Because anything less you would simply be following someone else's language choice or even when language is preferred still their product design decisions.
I currently work in a Go shop. Why Go? Did it win some business value delivering contest? I don't think so, it's just the initial team lead liked Go the most of the languages they knew and made everyone else learn it.
If you read my comment history you'll see I think Go is a mediocre choice. But, it's here to stay in this company and it doesn't matter what new language comes along it won't have the inertia or acceptance of the status quo language. The expected improvement has to be large enough to overcome the associated costs to sell the business case.
This idea of the status quo being somewhat arbitrary, and difficult to change, applies to more than just languages. It applies to everything else, your architecture, your work processes, your culture. A blueprint is set early on by some founding members, and perpetuated potentially forever.
In this world, rather than trying to change a company you change employers. Innovation is change, and to achieve that the individual changes, but leaves their company to remain the same.
Personally, I seek to improve in what I do, to innovate. And I think what we do can be done better and that the tools and systems in-place play a part in that. But will I introduce them at my workplace?
Perhaps not, I think I'll find a new job, and both my old and next company can pay the rather high costs of someone leaving and someone joining. This makes me a little sad, since I like my company and leaving would be a significant amount of institutional knowledge walking out the door.