my categorization isā¦
technical (i.e., electron is actually the best tool for the job)
Iām being a little more prescriptive than descriptive, & thatās probably why my categorization is simplistic. But, itās not totally accurate that Iāve broken the situation into only two categories. I see four:
Iāve made some attempts to argue that #1 is quite rare. Iām not convinced that a situation where electron is really the best technical fit exists, though Iād love to be proved wrong on this ā it would bring it, in my mind, from the category of technologies that are equally bad at everything to the much more interesting category of technologies that can do everything but are much better at one particular domain than all others. In practice, all four tend to interact to some extent, so you get qualified successes like āthis is the best tech (#1) that our team is comfortable with (#2 & #4), aside from this other thing that corporate wonāt let us use (#3)ā.
Small-computing situations (like personal projects) are a different beast entirely. In small computing, concerns like curiosity, masochism, competitiveness, playfulness, perversity, and showing off can easily individually override technical and tactical concerns, and in fact many technical and tactical concerns can be ignored or inverted. But, once you have customers, the kinds of intrinsic motivators that drive personal projects should never override the responsibility to the customer. In practice they do all the time, because we donāt do a very good job of separating hobby programming habits done in our free time from professional habits that make sense when there are higher stakes.
By John Ohno on May 3, 2018.
[Canonical link](https://medium.com/@enkiv2/im-being-a-little-more- prescriptive-than-descriptive-that-s-probably-why-my-categorization- is-8615a5694a43)
Exported from Medium on September 18, 2020.