A lot of people say they want a tech career. But if you listen closely, what they really have is a fantasy, not a plan. A fantasy sounds like: - “I’ll figure it out as I go” - “Once I feel ready, I’ll take it seriously” - “I just need the right motivation” A plan sounds very different. The moment things change The shift happens when you stop asking: “Can I see myself in tech someday?” And start asking: “What am I doing this month to make it real?” That’s where most career switchers get uncomfortable and where progress actually starts. Why fantasies feel good (but go nowhere) Fantasies are exciting because: - There’s no pressure - No tradeoffs yet - No risk of being wrong But fantasies don’t require decisions. Plans do. Plans force clarity around: - A specific role - A realistic weekly time commitment - What matters now vs later - What progress looks like in 30 - 60 - 90 days That clarity is what turns effort into momentum. What treating tech like a plan actually looks like People who successfully switch careers into tech don’t wait to feel confident. They: - Pick a direction before they feel ready - Narrow their focus instead of keeping options open - Replace “learning” with building toward outcomes - Measure progress by output, not motivation It’s less exciting at first and far more effective. A simple reality check If someone asked you: “What’s your plan to get into tech?” Could you explain it clearly without saying “I’m still figuring it out”? If not, that’s okay. It just means you’re still treating it like a possibility instead of a priority. Here’s the challenge for today: Stop asking whether a tech career is possible for you.Start deciding whether you’re willing to plan for it. That one shift is where real career changes begin.

When people hear “frontend architecture,” they often picture something complex. Folders everywhere. Layers of abstractions. Patterns they barely understand yet. That’s not what good architecture looks like in small frontend projects. In fact, most small projects don’t suffer from too little structure. They suffer from too much structure too early. Good frontend architecture at a small scale is mostly about one thing: Making the code easy to understand and easy to change. That’s it. If your project has: - Clear data flow - Obvious component responsibilities - Minimal indirection - Predictable state ownership You’re already doing architecture well, even if the folder structure looks simple. In small frontend projects, good architecture usually means: Components do one job clearly. State lives close to where it’s used. Data flows in one direction. Files are named based on responsibility, not patterns. You shouldn’t need a diagram to understand what’s happening. If reading the code requires jumping across ten files to follow a single interaction, the structure is working against you. Here’s a mistake I see often. Beginners try to “future-proof” small apps by adding: - Shared abstractions before repetition exists - Global state before coordination is needed - Generic utilities before requirements are clear That usually increases complexity without solving real problems. Architecture should emerge from usage, not anticipation. Experienced frontend engineers start simple on purpose. They let the project grow until patterns repeat naturally. Only then do they extract shared logic. Only then do they introduce structure that earns its place. That restraint is what keeps small projects flexible instead of fragile. A good rule of thumb for frontend project structure: If removing an abstraction makes the code easier to understand, it probably wasn’t needed yet. Small projects benefit from: - Fewer layers - Clear boundaries - Local reasoning