5 ms·

Sounds like the word "debt" is being used to make their clients feel guilty, and the word "remodeling" is being introduced to make it sound as if they're doing

by unabst 10y ago

Sounds like the word "debt" is being used to make their clients feel guilty, and the word "remodeling" is being introduced to make it sound as if they're doing something novel. Doesn't technical debt just reflect operational priority? How is having old code a problem if it all works? Debating priority is not the same as automatically asserting it as a problem. And isn't technical wealth building always an opportunity? Why must one be in debt? But every business has a laundry list of opportunities. Technical wealth doesn't need to be at the top always. If the axiom is that being cutting edge is sacrosanct, then technical wealth would always be top priority, and technical debt would be an operational problem. But technical debt is just a function of the technical advancement in the field. No matter what you do, you'll always end up in debt if you sit around long enough, and decide to call what you have "debt". If you can make what you have better with technology available today, do it. If not, leave it. And ignore whether a technology is new or old. Just confirm if it is proven and tested.

catnaroek 10y ago
Technical debt isn't about old vs. new technology. It's about making technically questionable decisions for the sake of reducing development time and costs.
- unabst 10y ago
  Right. Except that's just one of the many ways it's defined in the article. The article is a hot mess. Even then, from a business perspective, reducing costs can be completely intentional and pragmatic. Meaning it can be profitable, so debt really is the wrong word. It's closer to sacrifice, or even frugality. You could go as far as to say it's technical efficiency, granted it does what is expected of it. But if it breaks or starts causing problems, then you just have problems. At which point call it whatever you like.
  - catnaroek 10y ago
    > Meaning it can be profitable, so debt really is the wrong word. The reason why it's called debt is because you'll have to pay it later, with interest.
    - unabst 10y ago
      Which is not how the term is being used in the article. But also "technically questionable decisions for the sake of reducing development time and costs" does not automatically become debt. Technically questionable decisions happen regardless so debt can be incurred without intending to save any money, and reducing development time and cost can be done without questionable decisions so without incurring any debt. The article uses Docker as an example of "remodeling" which could very well be a technically questionable decision, because their argument for it is that it saves a lot of money (and is not a technical argument, which is why it could be technically questionable). So in a sense, they're actively promoting technical debt because they're choosing their tools based on cost. They should rename their method from "remodeling" to "debt restructuring" or "refinancing". Of course, the middleman always gets paid.
      - catnaroek 10y ago
        > does not automatically become debt. It becomes technical debt. Just like financial debt costs you the interest rate times the amount owed, technical debt costs you time and resources spent on refactoring and cleaning up the code, rather than on activities that directly increase revenue, say, adding new features. One thing that makes technical debt particularly problematic is that you can incur in it without knowing it. Unlike the case with financial debt, where it's impossible to “accidentally” borrow money. But, just because technical debt is hard to measure, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. > reducing development time and cost can be done without questionable decisions so without incurring any debt. In principle, yes. In practice, the most common way to reduce development costs, at least in the short term, is to incur in technical debt. > They should rename their method from "remodeling" to "debt restructuring" or "refinancing". Of course, the middleman always gets paid. No disagreement here.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > One thing that makes technical debt particularly problematic is that you can incur in it without knowing it. Unlike the case with financial debt, where it's impossible to “accidentally” borrow money. Debt doesn't occur only because of agreements to borrow, it can occur because you've incurred a liability by some other means. Which, yes, can occur accidentally. Indeed, cutting development corners arguably risks incurring technical debt that will manifest concretely later in a process much more like cutting physical construction corners might risk negligence liability down the road and less like deliberate, planned debt financing vs. paying cash upfront for construction.

by unabst 10y ago

catnaroek 10y ago

Technical debt isn't about old vs. new technology. It's about making technically questionable decisions for the sake of reducing development time and costs.

unabst 10y ago
Right. Except that's just one of the many ways it's defined in the article. The article is a hot mess. Even then, from a business perspective, reducing costs can be completely intentional and pragmatic. Meaning it can be profitable, so debt really is the wrong word. It's closer to sacrifice, or even frugality. You could go as far as to say it's technical efficiency, granted it does what is expected of it. But if it breaks or starts causing problems, then you just have problems. At which point call it whatever you like.
- catnaroek 10y ago
  > Meaning it can be profitable, so debt really is the wrong word. The reason why it's called debt is because you'll have to pay it later, with interest.
  - unabst 10y ago
    Which is not how the term is being used in the article. But also "technically questionable decisions for the sake of reducing development time and costs" does not automatically become debt. Technically questionable decisions happen regardless so debt can be incurred without intending to save any money, and reducing development time and cost can be done without questionable decisions so without incurring any debt. The article uses Docker as an example of "remodeling" which could very well be a technically questionable decision, because their argument for it is that it saves a lot of money (and is not a technical argument, which is why it could be technically questionable). So in a sense, they're actively promoting technical debt because they're choosing their tools based on cost. They should rename their method from "remodeling" to "debt restructuring" or "refinancing". Of course, the middleman always gets paid.
    - catnaroek 10y ago
      > does not automatically become debt. It becomes technical debt. Just like financial debt costs you the interest rate times the amount owed, technical debt costs you time and resources spent on refactoring and cleaning up the code, rather than on activities that directly increase revenue, say, adding new features. One thing that makes technical debt particularly problematic is that you can incur in it without knowing it. Unlike the case with financial debt, where it's impossible to “accidentally” borrow money. But, just because technical debt is hard to measure, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. > reducing development time and cost can be done without questionable decisions so without incurring any debt. In principle, yes. In practice, the most common way to reduce development costs, at least in the short term, is to incur in technical debt. > They should rename their method from "remodeling" to "debt restructuring" or "refinancing". Of course, the middleman always gets paid. No disagreement here.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > One thing that makes technical debt particularly problematic is that you can incur in it without knowing it. Unlike the case with financial debt, where it's impossible to “accidentally” borrow money. Debt doesn't occur only because of agreements to borrow, it can occur because you've incurred a liability by some other means. Which, yes, can occur accidentally. Indeed, cutting development corners arguably risks incurring technical debt that will manifest concretely later in a process much more like cutting physical construction corners might risk negligence liability down the road and less like deliberate, planned debt financing vs. paying cash upfront for construction.