I believe it is a good thing that we have people working with all types of mentalities. People building software to power airplanes can use the downed tree and know it is going to work, even if it is not pretty and requires a lot of extra effort. People building web startups can experiment with the cutting edge technology and see how it fares, slowly passing the good back to the more conservative groups.

I think we're pretty lucky that we, as an industry, don't need to completely grow up. It keeps us constantly trying new ideas, some of which are good.

People sometimes forget that new techniques might be more robust and safe than old ones, as various insights have been gained over the years.

Your other point is also good. The technology to choose depends on the domain. Web startups and airplanes/weapons being the extremes. There is no feelgood overall advice that applies to everyone.

That's actually a common aspiration! You can't experiment a lot in a low-level job, but lots of people in the bridge-engineering business wish they had more leeway to experiment with new solutions, even if it wasn't quite at the Frank-Lloyd-Wright or Calatrava level of experimentation. This usually gets blamed on the bifurcation between big-name-architect vs. just-implement-it civil engineer, splitting a role that was more historically integrated between the design/engineering. Also, some blame it on crushing layers of government bureaucracy/regulation.

[] For the standard everyday bridge. New techniques and solutions are tried out for exotic bridges - bridges for high speed trains and such.

One nice thing about software right now is an "engineer" can build on the code created by tens of thousands of other "engineers."