In some cases the historical development of a mathematical subject/tool is not straightforward. Mathematicians define a particular notion and work in an accepted direction. After a while they come across some problems/complexities and refine/redefine their methods/tools/notions in a completely new way and so on.
Texts are not based on historical development of the mathematical subjects necessarily because the recent refined approaches are more regular and well-designed but these approaches don't reflect the original motivations and essential problems of the field properly. These roots are very useful for introducing subjects to students in a "natural" way.
Question. Which one should I choose when there is a contradiction between historical and official development processes of a particular subject? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each method? Is it possible to have an effective combination of these two methods?