3 ms·

It's just a loan. You can take on tech debt in order to grow a business, but there are risks and obligations. Loans as an overall concept are neither inherentl

by kahrl 5y ago

It's just a loan. You can take on tech debt in order to grow a business, but there are risks and obligations. Loans as an overall concept are neither inherently good nor bad.

xpe 5y ago
No. Don't assume it is a loan. 'Just' a loan? What kind of loan? A mortgage? Or maybe it is like issuing a bond? It is important to talk about our metaphors in detail. It isn't just the interest rate. It is also about how the debt is structured. Can you pay it back early? What happens when you default? And so on. Ultimately, the tech debt metaphor should be examined and challenged! It may not 'fit' reality in the ways you might expect.
- kahrl 5y ago
  Yes. The details of said loan are extremely important. That is exactly what I am saying. Blanket statements in abstract, professing the benefits or ills of tech debt lack any sense of nuance.
  - omginternets 5y ago
    I think his point was that it is like a loan in some sense, but the problem comes from thinking that it is exactly a loan (with an unclear payment schedule, and largely illegible interest).
    - xpe 5y ago
      It is relatively easy to understand a financial debt (compared to technical debt). There are straightforward calculations to talk about how financial debts combine, change over time, and the consequences of paying them back at various times. Less so with technical debt. How do you quantify it? Perhaps we should define a Technical Debt Unit (TDU)? How do you combine two technical debts? Do you add them? What if one compounds the other? So... we multiply them? Wait, that would result in TDU ^ 2. That breaks the units. This suggests that tech debt cannot be represented with a TDU -- or any commensurable unit. So, money tends to be fungible. Tech debt, not so much. We can choose our metaphors. Why is the tech debt metaphor so common? Perhaps because it fits the minds and brains of the business decision makers. Also, businesses recognize financial debt as quantifiable and manageable. It is no surprise that the "tech debt" language is somehow comfortable, even if the connection between the two is on shaky ground. However, too often, the hard work of conceptually mapping why and how financial debt is useful seems to be waved off.

by kahrl 5y ago

It's just a loan. You can take on tech debt in order to grow a business, but there are risks and obligations. Loans as an overall concept are neither inherently good nor bad.

xpe 5y ago

No. Don't assume it is a loan. 'Just' a loan? What kind of loan? A mortgage? Or maybe it is like issuing a bond? It is important to talk about our metaphors in detail. It isn't just the interest rate. It is also about how the debt is structured. Can you pay it back early? What happens when you default? And so on. Ultimately, the tech debt metaphor should be examined and challenged! It may not 'fit' reality in the ways you might expect.

kahrl 5y ago
Yes. The details of said loan are extremely important. That is exactly what I am saying. Blanket statements in abstract, professing the benefits or ills of tech debt lack any sense of nuance.
- omginternets 5y ago
  I think his point was that it is like a loan in some sense, but the problem comes from thinking that it is exactly a loan (with an unclear payment schedule, and largely illegible interest).
  - xpe 5y ago
    It is relatively easy to understand a financial debt (compared to technical debt). There are straightforward calculations to talk about how financial debts combine, change over time, and the consequences of paying them back at various times. Less so with technical debt. How do you quantify it? Perhaps we should define a Technical Debt Unit (TDU)? How do you combine two technical debts? Do you add them? What if one compounds the other? So... we multiply them? Wait, that would result in TDU ^ 2. That breaks the units. This suggests that tech debt cannot be represented with a TDU -- or any commensurable unit. So, money tends to be fungible. Tech debt, not so much. We can choose our metaphors. Why is the tech debt metaphor so common? Perhaps because it fits the minds and brains of the business decision makers. Also, businesses recognize financial debt as quantifiable and manageable. It is no surprise that the "tech debt" language is somehow comfortable, even if the connection between the two is on shaky ground. However, too often, the hard work of conceptually mapping why and how financial debt is useful seems to be waved off.