> Technical debt isn't about whether you like or understand a particular approach, it's about whether the codebase as a whole is still maintainable, whether the

> Technical debt isn't about whether you like or understand a particular approach, it's about whether the codebase as a whole is still maintainable, whether the bugs make sense and are fixable, whether new features can be added without stabilising the whole code base. It's not about that either ... it's about things that were put off, generally for valid reasons at the time. > It's never the new feature that's the problem. What do you mean by "problem"? Many new features are inherently problematic. > If the new feature can't be added in a good way, it's the old codebase that has unhandled technical debt. That would only apply to waterfall development with infinite foresight. In the real world, wise people employ the YAGNI principle.