Totally agree, with the added observation that as a software engineer, I want to be replaceable. If my software can't be divorced from its creator, it can't outlive me. I don't want to be glued to my work inextricably; if you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted.

being replaceable is a noble goal. the problem is that maybe some people don't want to be replaceable and maybe they want/seek to gain some kind of job security through the tooling they use, their idiosyncratic processes or just through rejection of new technology. those people are IMHO doomed to obsolescence.

Anecdote time: making yourself too specialized makes you easily replaceable too.

At a previous gig, a problem dev, who insisted on only using Erlang, was painted into a corner by eng at large who did not want to learn/support another language (Ruby, Python, JS, Java, and R were all over).

This dev eventually got fired, as they didn't really contribute much to "the big picture". Since their efforts were so limited in scope, their Erlang work was quickly replaced using the other languages, and consumers of the results never noticed.

YMMV. But that's a old standard that should probably die