Code that has worked for 30 years is more technical debt than the ability to support 'new languages' or 'pivot' the code? Maybe I am an old fart, but the opposite seems right to me.
Large code bases are difficult to add functionality to.
A code base that is easy to pivot and switch languages sounds more like a nightmare. Isn't it more likely that your new, zeitgeist-capable software would torpedo development in far less than 30 years. As I understand "new programmers", the 'reinventing the wheel' speed is measured in a few years not decades now.
Code that has worked for 30 years is more technical debt than the ability to support 'new languages' or 'pivot' the code? Maybe I am an old fart, but the opposite seems right to me.
Large code bases are difficult to add functionality to.
A code base that is easy to pivot and switch languages sounds more like a nightmare. Isn't it more likely that your new, zeitgeist-capable software would torpedo development in far less than 30 years. As I understand "new programmers", the 'reinventing the wheel' speed is measured in a few years not decades now.
Or did I misunderstand you?