I agree 100% that tech debt isn't bad code, and was never meant to suggest it. But that train left the station long ago, and now even experienced programmers ca

I agree 100% that tech debt isn't bad code, and was never meant to suggest it. But that train left the station long ago, and now even experienced programmers call bad code tech debt. The term now has no fixed or shared meaning, especially not among people who aren't programmers. To my mind, continuing to use it, despite having long ago lost most power to convey a specific idea, is wasteful. Worse, because it has no fixed meaning, it can be and is used to mean almost anything that, as the article notes, "feels bad". Perhaps it's a matter of my own personal experiences, where "tech debt" was applied to all kinds of things. If the business leadership determined some work to be tech debt, programmers were penalized for spending more than 10% of their time on it. In accounting terms, the business equated "tech debt" with operating expenses, and the business was rabid about reducing OpEx in their programming/IT department.