Part of the whole point of this blog was to explain why it's not possible to explain and satisfy their curiosity, because the reasons can't be disclosed externally outside of the company (either because the reasons are under NDA, or involve lawyer's concerns over terms or conditions, or because the company doesn't want to call out some project leader as a toxic jerk).

The blog post is a general answer of why sometimes people's curiosity can't be satisfied; pamphlets are so 18th century, after all. Sure, that's what the authors of the Federalist Papers used, but in the 21st century, we use blog posts instead of pamphlets. :-)

Now I'm imagining the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers restructured as a pair of blogs with links and comments. I like it.

Sometimes people ask because they're curious. Sometimes when people ask that, the question really seems to be "I think people should use my favourite tech by default, so I expect you to explain why you've diverted from the Chosen Path". To exaggerate a little, but if you've met one of those people, you get the idea.

I've seen both. The latter seems to sometimes occur with people who have a clear favourite (language|stack|whatever), mostly if they're also somehow overly confident that it's the right choice regardless of your problem.

I suspect that’s why he wrote the article. Now he can just point people to that.

I think it's a solid concise article about the various rationales behind making technology decisions. A lot of the reasons given would make for a solid checklist to go through when trying to decide on a technology to use. A lot of the stuff he goes through is not obvious to people who have not contemplated these types of decisions before.