> Isn't it more useful to think of code not as an asset but as a liability? In the same way a factory should be accounted for as a liability. You spend to buil

> Isn't it more useful to think of code not as an asset but as a liability? In the same way a factory should be accounted for as a liability. You spend to build the factory, then it depreciates to zero value, so all you've done is lose your original capital. It's not possible to ever get ahead. That's just a very bad understanding of basic accounting. Code is a capital asset. Getting value from it over the long term requires maintenance and repairs, improvements and replacements. "Technical debt" is a complete misnomer in terms of accounting principles.