Hm. I sense there is an expectation that "good ideas will win" if only we communicate them properly. But, when people are invested in <ideas that are orthogonal to your good ideas>, communication is not the right tool. Like trying to convince someone who believes they are the winner to take on the identity of the loser. The assumption is that "goodness" is universal/objective and the cause for disagreement is misunderstanding.
One version of this is trying to convince someone to switch language/framework/platform/paradigm, because your suggestion is objectively better. On the receiving end, it sounds like "admit that your investment into <old thing> was a waste and instead become a novice in <new thing>".
Another version is trying to convince someone to change business strategies. And so on.
Many ideas are bets on the future, but people are stakeholders in different versions of the future. If your argument amounts to asking someone to freely give up their stake in the future, it will fail. The more clearly it is explained, the worse it sounds on the receiving end.
One version of this is trying to convince someone to switch language/framework/platform/paradigm, because your suggestion is objectively better. On the receiving end, it sounds like "admit that your investment into <old thing> was a waste and instead become a novice in <new thing>".
Another version is trying to convince someone to change business strategies. And so on.
Many ideas are bets on the future, but people are stakeholders in different versions of the future. If your argument amounts to asking someone to freely give up their stake in the future, it will fail. The more clearly it is explained, the worse it sounds on the receiving end.