I've watched developers spend weeks debating tech stack choices before writing a single line of user-facing code.
"Should we use React or Vue?" "Postgres or MongoDB?" "Vercel or AWS?" "Tailwind or styled-components?"
And here's what I've learned: for 95% of products, the tech stack doesn't matter at all.
Your users don't care. Your revenue doesn't care. Only other developers care.
The optimization trap
New projects always start the same way:
Have an idea
Immediately start debating tech choices
Research "best practices" for three weeks
Set up the "perfect" architecture
Build for two weeks
Realize nobody wants it
Abandoned project with beautiful architecture
The tech stack decision becomes procrastination disguised as diligence.
Because debating React vs Vue feels productive. It feels like you're making important decisions. But you're actually just avoiding the scary part: building something and showing it to users.
What actually matters
Here's what determines if your product succeeds:
Does it solve a real problem?
Can users figure out how to use it?
Is it fast enough?
Does it work reliably?
Notice what's not on that list: whether you used the "best" framework or the "right" database.
Users don't know what your stack is. They don't care. They care whether your product helps them.
I've seen products with terrible tech stacks succeed because they solved real problems. And I've seen products with perfect architecture fail because nobody wanted them.
The premature scaling problem
Most tech stack debates are about scale you'll never hit:
"We need to choose a database that can handle millions of users."
Cool. You have zero users. You'll probably never have millions. And if you do, you'll have money to migrate.
"We need to pick a framework with the best performance."
Your performance bottleneck isn't the framework. It's that you're making 50 API calls on page load because you haven't optimized anything.
When tech choices actually matter
There are exactly three times your tech stack matters:
1. Extreme scale requirements. If you're building something that needs to handle millions of concurrent users from day one. (You're not.)
2. Specific technical constraints. If you need specific capabilities only certain technologies provide. (Most products don't.)
3. Hiring constraints. If you can only hire for certain technologies in your market. (Relevant for some companies.)
Everything else is premature optimization.
The defaults work fine
You know what stack works for almost everything?
Next.js or whatever web framework you already know
Postgres or MongoDB (either is fine)
Any major cloud provider
Whatever CSS framework ships fast
That's it. That's the entire decision.
These tools are mature, documented, and good enough for products worth billions. They're definitely good enough for your MVP.
All the time you spent debating subtle differences? Wasted.
What you should optimize instead
Instead of optimizing tech stack, optimize:
1. Speed to ship. Use whatever lets you ship fastest. Usually that's what you already know.
2. Iteration speed. Use whatever lets you change things quickly when users give feedback.
3. Time to working prototype. Use whatever gets something in users' hands soonest.
4. Developer happiness. If you hate your stack, you won't ship. Use what makes coding feel good.
Notice these are all about execution speed, not technical perfection.
The real cost
Every hour spent debating tech stack is an hour not spent:
Talking to users
Building features
Testing the actual product
Validating your idea
I've seen founders spend a month setting up the "right" architecture then realize their idea doesn't work and abandon it.
They optimized the wrong thing. They built a Ferrari before checking if anyone wanted to go anywhere.
When I started Nexus
I didn't spend time on tech stack decisions. I used:
Next.js (because I know it)
Vercel (because it's easy)
Postgres (because it works)
Anthropic's API (because Claude is good)
Could I have made "better" choices? Maybe. Do I care? No.
The product works. Users pay for it. The tech stack is completely irrelevant to whether people find value in it.
Every hour I could have spent optimizing technical decisions went into shipping features and talking to users instead.
The developer trap
Developers love this trap because:
Technical decisions feel important
They're easier than user research
They're more comfortable than sales
They're legible to other developers
They're less scary than shipping
So they optimize tech stack as a way to feel productive while avoiding the hard parts.
But users don't care about your architecture decisions. They care about whether your product works.
What successful founders do
The successful founders I know:
Use boring, proven technology
Ship with whatever they know
Optimize infrastructure only when it breaks
Spend time on users, not architecture
The unsuccessful ones:
Research the "best" stack for weeks
Build perfect architecture
Never talk to users
Have beautiful code nobody uses
The brutal truth
If your product fails, it won't be because you chose Vue instead of React.
It'll be because:
Nobody wanted what you built
You didn't talk to users enough
You didn't ship fast enough
You didn't iterate based on feedback
All the tech stack optimization in the world won't save you from those problems.
So stop debating. Pick something. Ship.
Your tech stack doesn't matter until you have users. And if you have users, you have money to fix it.
— Arjun