4 ms·

Nine times out of ten the issues are being exaggerated and can simply be ignored. That's not what the engineers want to hear of course. They are eager to fix

Nine times out of ten the issues are being exaggerated and can simply be ignored. That's not what the engineers want to hear of course. They are eager to fix things, to stop their daily grind. It's very rare to actually get stuck due to technical debt. The times I've seen it happen, we grabbed all the (relevant) developers, came up with a solution, and fixed it quickly. As long as you don't have high turnover, technical debt is fine. You have a team who is aware of all the quirks of the codebase(s) and knows how to deal with it.

pavel_lishin 8y ago
> As long as you don't have high turnover, technical debt is fine. "If you tell them to shut up enough times, eventually they will." > They are eager to fix things, to stop their daily grind. Yes, because being ground down daily will eventually wear you down. > You have a team who is aware of all the quirks of the codebase(s) and knows how to deal with it. But that's not a good thing. If your technical debt adds an hour to a dev's day, every day, you're running at ~85% capacity. If you have tests that need to be babysat, or code that takes a long time to add new features to (or fix bugs in) because of tech debt, you're losing valuable time. Even if it's not necessarily the sort of thing that brings a codebase to its knees, or the kind of thing that sinks a business, but it is the equivalent of refusing to tie your shoes and tripping and falling as you keep trying to walk to your destination.
- SmirkingRevenge 8y ago
  > Yes, because being ground down daily will eventually wear you down. This is true. If too much technical debt accrues unchecked over time, it can have a real effect on the quality of life and morale of your engineering team - which eventually manifests as high turnover, which in turn leads to more tech debt, in a vicious feedback loop. I've worked at such a place, and the only relief from that cycle came in the form of lost clients. But then again, despite death spiral, the company was bought out, and the owners made out pretty well. I think maybe the old adage about outrunning a cheetah is apt here... to outrun one, you only have to run faster than the guy next to you.
  - pavel_lishin 8y ago
    > which eventually manifests as high turnover Or, arguably worse, a crew of beaten-down 9-5 lifers who don't particularly care about their job.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

pavel_lishin 8y ago

> As long as you don't have high turnover, technical debt is fine. "If you tell them to shut up enough times, eventually they will." > They are eager to fix things, to stop their daily grind. Yes, because being ground down daily will eventually wear you down. > You have a team who is aware of all the quirks of the codebase(s) and knows how to deal with it. But that's not a good thing. If your technical debt adds an hour to a dev's day, every day, you're running at ~85% capacity. If you have tests that need to be babysat, or code that takes a long time to add new features to (or fix bugs in) because of tech debt, you're losing valuable time. Even if it's not necessarily the sort of thing that brings a codebase to its knees, or the kind of thing that sinks a business, but it is the equivalent of refusing to tie your shoes and tripping and falling as you keep trying to walk to your destination.

SmirkingRevenge 8y ago
> Yes, because being ground down daily will eventually wear you down. This is true. If too much technical debt accrues unchecked over time, it can have a real effect on the quality of life and morale of your engineering team - which eventually manifests as high turnover, which in turn leads to more tech debt, in a vicious feedback loop. I've worked at such a place, and the only relief from that cycle came in the form of lost clients. But then again, despite death spiral, the company was bought out, and the owners made out pretty well. I think maybe the old adage about outrunning a cheetah is apt here... to outrun one, you only have to run faster than the guy next to you.
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  > which eventually manifests as high turnover Or, arguably worse, a crew of beaten-down 9-5 lifers who don't particularly care about their job.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]