What happens if someone tells you that you can do something cheaper and equally the same as SQL Server with another piece of tech? It's equally the performance, but cheaper on the resources (i.e.: time to develop for example)? What most of us face is the fact that SQL Server can still do the job. It can do a lot actually regardless of the age. But, SQL Server is also expensive in a few areas. The issue is getting people to come off old tech that can still do the job for something new that can maybe do it better in certain areas like for this example, resources. We still face the same old uphill battle of getting people to swing in a new direction from existing sometimes dated tech that is still costing us more in keeping it.
Excellent questions! Thank you for the comeback.
I'm actually going through the very thing you speak of right now.
As a bit of background, when I first got to my current company, code promotions were akin to herding cats, code format and embedded documentation ranged from not existent to resembling hash marks in underwear, performance made serious flushing sounds (multiple 10 minute "outages" due to blocking every day and deadlocks were at crazy levels), and everything was totally unauditable. Most of the cowboys that put that mess together had left the company and a few of the good ones were still on board. I talked with them and told them we could fix it and we did. The auditors love us and the code has come a long way from the original mess it was in. The system of review, test, and deployment that I had put together along with their help and management buy in worked incredibly well. Test failure and rework was at nearly 0 and production failures became unheard of.
Now, one of the big guns at work wants to change to a totally different system of doing things. He claims that parts of his system have worked well for his team and want's our team to use the same system. It does have the advantage of possibly preventing accidental overwrites when the two teams are working on, say, the same stored procedure at the same time. I've seen the code and the performance from this other team and a huge amount of it fails in many of the same areas as when I first came on board. Because of that, I'm thinking that their system sucks. Worse yet, he wanted to stand up another machine to handle the review and promotion process.
At that point, I cringed and developed an involuntary twitch. 😛
Then, he explains how his plan will help both teams, how he envisions it working and, knowing how busy I am, how he'll setup and do the next big release (which I normally do) as part of the shakedown-cruise as well as take the time to document things so that I don't have to and then teach me how it all works. The fact that he actually has taken the time to lay out a plan goes a long way with me and... the plan actually sounds pretty good.
I'm still skeptical that it will do all the things he says it will but, as he continues to develop the system, he's kept me in the loop and when he's run into a problem, has asked me what my opinion is.
Even though I'm skeptical as to how this will cut the time for development, review, testing, and deployment, how can I say no to such an attempt? I'd be stupid to not allow or support the attempt. The only thing that it's costing is the setup of a VM and his time. If it works, we all win because both teams will have a better way. If it doesn't work, then we'll both know but we will have tried.
This isn't like the other scenarios where I've proven that the existing tools are the best tools for the job. This is something truly new to the company and the person pushing it has actually done due diligence and the correct amount of research to be given a shot at it. Further and since it is new, if there's a problem, I'll gladly assist to see if it can be resolved or try to find a work around that doesn't require someone to stand on their head while using the new system.
Ok... now, do you remember this?
This is sort of the thinking that turns away new ideas.
And I said ...
It's actually not. Go back and read what I wrote. I usually give every idea the chance to succeed. It would be stupid to do otherwise.
... let me make a believer in you of what I said. This guy is the same person that keeps telling me that "Just because you can do something in SQL, doesn't mean you should" and "To a hammer, everything is a nail", and caused the company to spend $350K on a system that could have easily and much less expensively been done with SQL Server. I don't let ownership, emotions, or personal prejudice get in the way of good ideas even if the other person can't do the same. 😉