Ever felt a twinge of doubt when a celebrated “best practice” just didn’t seem right for your project? Or maybe you’ve found yourself defending a perfectly sensible solution simply because it deviated from the official framework documentation? If so, you’re not alone. The term “best practices” has become ubiquitous in web development, yet as our tools and environments diversify, it often fails to capture the nuanced reality of professional software engineering. In this article, I’ll explore why the concept of universal “best practices” often falls short and propose a more accurate framing for the patterns we adopt.
The Illusion of Universal “Best Practices”
When we speak of “best practices,” we imply a universal standard. However, the reality is far more complex. What works optimally for a Next.js application deployed on Vercel might be problematic when self-hosted. The patterns that serve an unauthenticated marketing site brilliantly might introduce unnecessary complexity in an authenticated dashboard.
In meetings we hear management ask, “Does this follow best practices?” I often feel that question negates the painstaking and well-informed decisions made to make our project a success.
Consider state management: a framework might recommend heavy client-side state management as a “best practice.” This could be ideal for an offline-first application. But for a real-time collaborative tool requiring constant data synchronization, this “best practice” could lead to significant performance bottlenecks and data consistency headaches. In that context, a server-centric approach, while deviating from the guide, might be the superior engineering choice.
Today’s JavaScript/TypeScript ecosystem moves at a relentless pace. React’s patterns evolved from classes to hooks to server components. TypeScript’s approach shifts with releases. Frameworks like Angular, React, Vue, Svelte, Qwik, and Solid each promote their own paradigms, often contradicting what’s considered “best” elsewhere.
The Professional’s Dilemma
Many developers, even experienced ones, struggle with the tension between generalized advice and what works for their specific situation. This is particularly challenging for mid-level developers who recognize when conventional wisdom doesn’t fit but may lack the confidence to deviate. You might find yourself explaining why you’re not following the official recommendation, feeling as though you’re somehow doing something wrong.
The truth is, your contextual knowledge — understanding your application’s specific authentication, deployment constraints, performance needs, or team capabilities — is invaluable.
Learning to trust this judgment is part of maturing as a developer.
Context Determines Quality
While often serving as valuable starting points or encoding solutions to common problems, “best practices” must yield to context. The factors that make a pattern effective include:
- The specific framework and its version
- Deployment infrastructure and environment
- Authentication requirements
- Performance constraints
- Team composition and experience
- Project lifespan and maintenance expectations
What’s optimal in one scenario may be harmful in another.
From “Best Practices” to Context-Optimized Patterns
Instead of “best practices,” let’s use language that reflects our decision-making. Terms like “engineered patterns” or “context-optimized approaches” better capture what we do: making informed engineering decisions based on specific contexts and constraints.
When a senior engineer implements a pattern, they’re applying expertise to select an approach optimized for the specific requirements, constraints, and trade-offs — not blindly following a universal rule.
Embracing Contextual Confidence
If you’re wrestling with decisions that contradict conventional wisdom, trust your engineering judgment. Document your reasoning, explain the context, and be open to revisiting it.
Remember, the most respected engineers thoughtfully evaluate options and select approaches appropriate to the challenge. This contextual decision-making is the true mark of engineering maturity.
Conclusion & Discussion
As web development evolves, we need terminology that reflects the complexity of our work. Moving beyond the simplistic notion of “best practices” to concepts like “context-optimized patterns” allows for better communication about the thoughtful engineering we perform.
The next time you choose a specific approach, consider framing it not as adherence to (or deviation from) a “best practice,” but as a deliberate, context-driven engineering decision.
What are your experiences? Have you encountered situations where a “best practice” wasn’t the best solution for your context? Share your thoughts in the comments!
