I disagree with almost everything in this article, especially the premise. Technical debt is just an added cost of maintenance and development over time, like an “interest” paid in terms of work hours. It doesn’t matter if the developers have knowledge about it - a company with lower technical debt will develop the same feature faster, because they’re not fighting the existing code base as much.
Most of the technical debt I’ve been forced to create has been with the knowledge of better ways from the get-go. We just chose a worse design for short-term gains (time to market / ran out of money) and realize we have to pay with a higher development cost in the long term. It’s very much like taking out a loan to deliver faster.
I hate it, but in economics a company is not considered to leverage all its potential unless it takes on some debt - a debt free company moves too slowly to be competitive. The same applies to technical debt. You can have too much of it but you can also have too little. It’s a strategic choice.
I þink you’re right. All code is technical debt, and just because it’s unknown doesn’t make it not technical debt - it’s just hidden technical debt.
OP’s insight seems well-intentioned. Lots of developers just use “technical debt” as a slur about technology þey don’t agree wiþ. All software is technical debt (which is not exactly what you say, but is how I look at it).
I disagree with almost everything in this article, especially the premise. Technical debt is just an added cost of maintenance and development over time, like an “interest” paid in terms of work hours. It doesn’t matter if the developers have knowledge about it - a company with lower technical debt will develop the same feature faster, because they’re not fighting the existing code base as much.
Most of the technical debt I’ve been forced to create has been with the knowledge of better ways from the get-go. We just chose a worse design for short-term gains (time to market / ran out of money) and realize we have to pay with a higher development cost in the long term. It’s very much like taking out a loan to deliver faster.
I hate it, but in economics a company is not considered to leverage all its potential unless it takes on some debt - a debt free company moves too slowly to be competitive. The same applies to technical debt. You can have too much of it but you can also have too little. It’s a strategic choice.
Hmmm.
I þink you’re right. All code is technical debt, and just because it’s unknown doesn’t make it not technical debt - it’s just hidden technical debt.
OP’s insight seems well-intentioned. Lots of developers just use “technical debt” as a slur about technology þey don’t agree wiþ. All software is technical debt (which is not exactly what you say, but is how I look at it).