Why Veteran Developers Are Switching Sides in Tech's Holy Wars

In software development, strong opinions are common, but with experience, many find their once-unshakeable beliefs begin to evolve. This shift isn't about being wrong, but about gaining a more nuanced understanding of trade-offs. A look into how developers' views have changed reveals a common trend: moving away from dogmatic adherence to a single "best way" and toward a more pragmatic, context-aware approach.

The Great Typing Debate: From Dynamic Freedom to Static Safety

One of the most significant flip-flops is the move from dynamic to static typing. Many developers initially prefer dynamic languages, arguing that static types are overly verbose, stifle creativity, and slow down development with mandatory compile steps. The common refrain is, "All this type checking is slowing me down."

However, a growing number are converting, often after a positive experience with a language like TypeScript on a collaborative project. They discover that what they perceived as a slowdown was actually a valuable guardrail. The arguments against static typing often come from "ignorance" of its modern implementations. The initial concerns about compile times are often reframed with experience; for many, organizational delays like waiting on access tickets are a far bigger bottleneck than an 8-second build.

That said, for those engaged in rapid experimentation or troubleshooting, even a few seconds of compile time can disrupt concentration. A useful workflow to combat this involves optimizing the toolchain:

1. Start with the default TypeScript compiler.
2. As the project grows and compile times exceed 10-30 seconds, switch to a faster alternative like SWC.
3. For the fastest feedback loop, leverage Node.js's native TypeScript support, which uses an in-memory type stripper to effectively eliminate the compile step.

Of course, the dynamic camp still has its adherents, particularly those scarred by the ceremony of older languages like C++. They value the flexibility of changing a variable's type on the fly and find it particularly useful in web development, where all inputs arrive as text and require parsing regardless.

Choosing a Systems Language: Beyond Hype

The debate between newer systems languages like Rust and Go also sees its share of converts. Some who were firmly in the "Rust only" camp have come to appreciate Go's underrated developer experience and suitability for certain teams and problems.

Another common journey is from C to Go. Initial skepticism often centers on Go's garbage collector (GC) and its practice of bundling dependencies into a single binary. However, in practice, the binaries remain manageably small, and Go provides developers with enough control over memory allocation to minimize GC pauses. The simplicity of goroutines for concurrency (without the complexity of "colored functions" seen in other languages) and its C-like insistence on treating error handling as a first-class citizen ultimately win many over.

Finding Pragmatism in Editors and Indentation

Even the classic editor and formatting wars are seeing a mellowing of opinions. Developers who were once "Vim snobs" now find themselves using Emacs and, more importantly, advocating for a "use what works for you" philosophy. This maturation reflects a broader shift from evangelizing a specific tool to prioritizing individual and team productivity.

The tabs vs. spaces debate has also found a more nuanced resolution: it depends on the language.

• For block-structured languages (like C, Go, C++), tabs are perfectly functional. They allow each developer to set their preferred indentation width without affecting the source code's structure.
• For alignment-sensitive languages (like Lisp), spaces are a necessity. Aligning nested function arguments requires a variable amount of whitespace that fixed-width tabs cannot provide.

Rethinking Foundational Beliefs

Beyond specific tools, developers are also reconsidering more fundamental philosophies. The long-held belief in the inherent good of "open source" and an "open web" is being questioned. The rise of large-scale AI has revealed a downside: these open resources are being scraped en masse, often without regard for licensing, by the same big tech companies that once championed openness. This has led some to believe that "open" only works when all parties act in good faith—a condition that may no longer hold.

From font ligatures (once hated, now loved for aesthetics) to technical debt (once a cardinal sin, now sometimes seen as a pragmatic choice not to fix), the overarching theme is clear. Experience fosters flexibility, and the best developers learn to see every "holy war" not as a battle to be won, but as a spectrum of trade-offs to be understood.