How important are side-by-side comparisons for new technologies?

Question

Hey all, final question for the market research that my graduate team is doing for new product adoptions. Thank you all for the help you have provided so far, it has been invaluable for our research. I'll publish a link to our industry white paper if anyone is interested (and it doesn't get closed).

So how important are side-by-side comparisons between technologies if you are going to try a new language or development system? Is it something that you absolutely need in order to see the comparative advantages/disadvantages, or simply something that's "nice"? Do they make you more likely to be comfortable trying a new technology or to grasp its usages? Any free-flowing comments are greatly appreciated.

Answer 1

I find side-to-side comparisons nice, but certainly not the be-all-end-all. If I have the opportunity, I will use both for a limited time, since my own hands-on experience is priceless in determining which tech fulfills my needs.

Since that is not often the case, most of the time I will pick the technology that either a) falls more directly in line with what my project is trying to accomplish or b) is better supported and more widely recognized.

In short, I need to have the tech I am going to use fulfill a specific need better than any others in order for my to adopt it.

Answer 2

I think it depends on who is making the adoption decision. In my experience hands on professionals typically rely on a hands on evaluation of the options. This may be through personal experience or the experiences of others they trust. Those who aren't hands on themselves (e.g. some architects, some managers, etc.) rely much more on side-by-side comparisons and other literature.

The shortcoming with side-by-side comparisons is that you're forced into the comparison author's framework for evaluation. The shortcoming with hands on evaluation is that it takes time and relies on the skills of the evaluator/s.