4 ms·

I wouldn't even say lack of testing is technical debt - it's just another feature that isn't implemented. Once you implement it, problem's solved. It doesn't m

I wouldn't even say lack of testing is technical debt - it's just another feature that isn't implemented. Once you implement it, problem's solved. It doesn't make the system worse/more expensive as it grows, and it doesn't become more costly to "fix" the bigger the system gets. IMO those are the operative features of tech debt.

yoz-y 6y ago
If you always have a perfect vision of your software and the team is very small then I would agree. (I.e.: I don’t write tests for my hobby projects) But testing is mainly important so a developer not familiar with the program will not break it by modifying something seemingly unrelated. Lack of tests will absolutely bite you.
- bananaface 6y ago
  I agree, I just wouldn't call it tech debt. It doesn't become more expensive to fix over time, except for the bump when you forget how the original code works. There's no metaphorical "interest" that you draw down on.
Hokusai 6y ago
> I wouldn't even say lack of testing is technical deb You are right, it depends on the kind of application and circumstances testing can be done in different ways. There is occasions were instead of automated testing there are other ways of working with quality. But, in this case automated testing is in the list of things that needs to be done. So, I think that to want automated testing and not have them is technical debt.
- bananaface 6y ago
  I said this below but I like to distinguish technical debt as having metaphorical "interest" - specifically, it becomes more expensive to pay back the longer you leave it, the ball of debt grows over time. It's stuff that gets baked into a product, and then is difficult (or impossible) to un-bake, and gets more difficult the more the product grows around it. Aside from the initial increase in cost when you forget how the original code worked, tests are no more expensive to write in a year as they are today. Not significantly, at least. So I'd just class them as incomplete product - the effects are negative and can be expensive, but it doesn't dig you into a hole.

yoz-y 6y ago

If you always have a perfect vision of your software and the team is very small then I would agree. (I.e.: I don’t write tests for my hobby projects) But testing is mainly important so a developer not familiar with the program will not break it by modifying something seemingly unrelated. Lack of tests will absolutely bite you.

bananaface 6y ago
I agree, I just wouldn't call it tech debt. It doesn't become more expensive to fix over time, except for the bump when you forget how the original code works. There's no metaphorical "interest" that you draw down on.

Hokusai 6y ago

> I wouldn't even say lack of testing is technical deb You are right, it depends on the kind of application and circumstances testing can be done in different ways. There is occasions were instead of automated testing there are other ways of working with quality. But, in this case automated testing is in the list of things that needs to be done. So, I think that to want automated testing and not have them is technical debt.

bananaface 6y ago
I said this below but I like to distinguish technical debt as having metaphorical "interest" - specifically, it becomes more expensive to pay back the longer you leave it, the ball of debt grows over time. It's stuff that gets baked into a product, and then is difficult (or impossible) to un-bake, and gets more difficult the more the product grows around it. Aside from the initial increase in cost when you forget how the original code worked, tests are no more expensive to write in a year as they are today. Not significantly, at least. So I'd just class them as incomplete product - the effects are negative and can be expensive, but it doesn't dig you into a hole.