Like any other technology that wishes to supplant the status-quo, a new programming language cannot be just 'a little bit better'. It has to be substantially better in order to overcome the inertia that the entrenched technology has established.
This is true for both software and hardware. There have been plenty of leaps and bounds such as SSD speeds compared to HDD speeds; but even there, SSDs will not supplant HDDs until there is price parity between the two technologies. Until then, data will be stored on SSD when fast access is critical and on HDD when there is too much of it to justify the cost.
Getting a company to switch operating systems, database vendors, or cloud providers is likewise an uphill battle. They don't call them 'walled gardens' for nothing.
I am building a new data management system that I think is much better than file systems at storing and managing unstructured data and better than RDBMS at managing structured data; but I wouldn't have even dreamed of starting the project if I wasn't confident that it was at least 2x better at a minimum.
This is true for both software and hardware. There have been plenty of leaps and bounds such as SSD speeds compared to HDD speeds; but even there, SSDs will not supplant HDDs until there is price parity between the two technologies. Until then, data will be stored on SSD when fast access is critical and on HDD when there is too much of it to justify the cost.
Getting a company to switch operating systems, database vendors, or cloud providers is likewise an uphill battle. They don't call them 'walled gardens' for nothing.
I am building a new data management system that I think is much better than file systems at storing and managing unstructured data and better than RDBMS at managing structured data; but I wouldn't have even dreamed of starting the project if I wasn't confident that it was at least 2x better at a minimum.