As a general comment on how to approach system design decisions:
From this text, it is not clear to me, why exactly is cucumber superior.
I don't think it's a matter of the implementation language.
You should be able to show concrete examples what cucumber actually does better than cloudmon, so you could convince me, as a reader.
I would also expect a proposal to use new technology to list the shortcomings of said technology as well, because in my experience every technological decision has, of course, up- and downsides.
Presenting only upsides is showing me, that we either are not aware of the downsides, which is dangerous, because it means we will learn of the downsides much later, and they might be even worse then the previous solution. In rare cases there are no downsides and you have a straight up better technical solution, which should be spelled out as well in the text, showing that at least it was thought about if there are downsides to the new solution.
If I don't see such things, it's a red flag to me, as it's shows a clear bias in the decision, because when we are honest, of course we all, as humans, like one technology more than the other for a variety of subjective reasons like prior familiarity, trendiness, marketing and last but not least, technical merit.
I think though it's important that we know about our own biases and at least make an attempt to counter them by an honest technical analysis of the up- and downsides of a given software.
So either not enough research was done, to be able to list up- and downsides of all solutions.
Or there is some bias, sweeping downsides under the rug.
Both are understandable things that happen to all of us, still I think if we want to make better decisions we should try to avoid that.
As a general comment on how to approach system design decisions:
From this text, it is not clear to me, why exactly is cucumber superior.
I don't think it's a matter of the implementation language.
You should be able to show concrete examples what cucumber actually does better than cloudmon, so you could convince me, as a reader.
I would also expect a proposal to use new technology to list the shortcomings of said technology as well, because in my experience every technological decision has, of course, up- and downsides.
Presenting only upsides is showing me, that we either are not aware of the downsides, which is dangerous, because it means we will learn of the downsides much later, and they might be even worse then the previous solution. In rare cases there are no downsides and you have a straight up better technical solution, which should be spelled out as well in the text, showing that at least it was thought about if there are downsides to the new solution.
If I don't see such things, it's a red flag to me, as it's shows a clear bias in the decision, because when we are honest, of course we all, as humans, like one technology more than the other for a variety of subjective reasons like prior familiarity, trendiness, marketing and last but not least, technical merit.
I think though it's important that we know about our own biases and at least make an attempt to counter them by an honest technical analysis of the up- and downsides of a given software.
So either not enough research was done, to be able to list up- and downsides of all solutions. Or there is some bias, sweeping downsides under the rug.
Both are understandable things that happen to all of us, still I think if we want to make better decisions we should try to avoid that.
Thanks for reading, if you made it this far.