3 ms·

> From this point of view, I guess you should make an exception and treat tech debt complaints more seriously when it is coming from the devs who wrote the orig

• convolvatron 8y ago
  the other way works too. any developer should be able to discuss at length the compromises made and the weak aspects of any project. every piece of software has a long list of potential improvements in clarity, verification, efficiency, generality, etc. when I first heard the term 'technical debt', I thought it was fantastic that we had a shared name. but as someone else pointed out in this thread, the normal compromises one makes because of schedule and lack of importance are really a different thing entirely than a codebase that is failing structurally. normal compromises can be ignored, and often aren't even compositional. thats the kind of linear, easily repairable stuff I think should be called 'debt', and it isn't scary at all. you overcome it at some later date when and if it makes sense. maybe debt isn't the right word, because you aren't borrowing failure from some abstract ideal, you're just choosing to trade of time for quality, which every effort in every field has to do. structural issues that compound exponentially, and make it increasingly difficult to make any changes at all are a different thing (call it 'crippling debt', idk). its a metastatic cancer and can easily be fatal.