Quite right. Thus they implicitly equate poor quality code with technical debt. This makes the metaphor unsuited to a proper aversion to poor quality code. If i

Quite right. Thus they implicitly equate poor quality code with technical debt. This makes the metaphor unsuited to a proper aversion to poor quality code. If it's simply debt it can be paid off later with a small amount of interest. Such a conclusion is contrary to the one the paper is trying to put forth.