There's a self reinforcing loop when it comes to programming languages; software engineers won't learn a language or framework if it's not popular and if there's no market demand for it, companies won't make use of a programming language or framework if there isn't a reasonable supply of software engineers who can use that programming language/framework.
To overcome this, language engineers have to do better than creating a "me too" language that has no distinctive features or utilities, some architecture become popular on the strength of its utility, word goes around fast in the tech industry. What is more likely the case is that the language engineers are funded by an organization who has the financial muscle to invest heavily in marketing as the architecture in question serves their long-term interest.
To some extent, one can say that front-end architecture are more prone to changes than backend as we've seen sustained use of the same backend technology for decades. I however believe the opposite, I believe there have been more successes in introducing newer front-end architecture (because we don't hear about the failures) than backend architecture and this is because people are very cautious with backend technology, there are three rules which I believe govern the use of backend architecture
- If it isn't broken don't fix it.
- If it's broken and the creator will fix it you might as well wait for the creator to fix it.
- If it's free don't change it.
It is understandable that organizations will be more cautious with their backend and this is because while less glamarous (to the end users) backend is the very foundation upon which a software solutions are built, any errors can be very costly, the risks far outweigh any marginal utility to be gained from the sexy new language. I would like to know your opinion(s) on which architecture is more prone to change between front-end and backend coupled with your reason.