I can't believe people are still talking about tech debt like it's a real thing.
Debt is the amount owed on a loan. There is no loan taken out, nor terms. There is no creditor. There is no term sheet. There is no capital. There is no security. There is no debt. It's imaginary. Not imaginary like how money is imaginary. It literally does not exist, in any way shape or form, other than as myth, parable, metaphor, or ghost story. Better not incur tech debt, the boogie man will get ya! (Or, as is much more popular as a rationalization: that debt as fiscal policy is actually a good thing, so 'tech debt' must similarly be good)
If it was real debt, the bank would have called in their loans on the deadbeats and forced them to fix their shit, far more often than actually happens. But it's not debt. It's just lazy people putting off what they don't feel like doing.
The idea behind tech debt is just the state of cheating yourself by doing a shitty thing for short-term gain. It has nothing to do with money. It's an intellectual rationalization for being lazy. ("Hey, it's no big deal that I didn't add security to the web service, it's just tech debt! I'll pay it back later!")
It's like drinking too much booze, eating too much pizza, and not working out, because it's easier to do that now, with the promise of working out later to relieve the "debt". But you never stop pigging out, and you never start working out. It's just cheating yourself in the future to be lazy today with no material consequence.
OK, if drinking too much booze, eating too much pizza, and not working out are instrumental in rapidly getting the service in the hands of paying users, then it's like those things.
It's called "tech debt" rather than "tech indulgence" because it is helpful but has to be repaid in time.
You don't repay tech debt because it's not an actual debt. It's just taking shortcuts. You don't have to repay anyone for taking a shortcut. You do have to repay a debt, or your fucking car gets repossessed. And it's not like debt in any other way either. Hence tech debt is not debt.
A better metaphor: it's like adultering extra-virgin olive oil with cheap refined oil and calling that "oil debt". It's not debt, you're just cheating. Sure, you're "delivering a product into the hands of users faster". There is nobody to pay back, there is nothing you owe, unless you get caught. Similarly, 'tech debt' never needs to be paid back, unless one day it bites you in the ass and you can't get around it and have to do it the right way. Actual debt does not work like that at all.
Or, actually accurate: building a physical metal machine with poor tolerance and quality control. Building it to high tolerances and quality would have taken more time or expense, so they instead built it shittily so they could deliver it quicker. And it may work for the customer for a little while, but it will also have defects and stop working, and then the customer is screwed. This is not "machine debt". It's just a shitty machine, made by lazy people, so they could make money quicker.
That is not how debt works. It's not debt. It's just a bad metaphor for being lazy and taking shortcuts. And it's being used now to justify being lazy and taking shortcuts. It's crazy that so many people just eat these rationalizations and then continue them as if they make sense. The dumb leading the dumb.
(Also, what the hell? how could drinking and eating too much lead to people getting a product??)
Junk food certainly gets you fed faster, and tastes more pleasurable, than cooking a nutritious meal yourself. It gives you what you want in the short term. It can kill you in the long term.
Nobody has to pay back the "debt" of junk food, nothing is forcing it. Just like nothing is forcing the "paying back" of "debt" of bad software. In either case, people just get along with junk, until suddenly they have a huge problem, and realize they are now forced to get their act together. But it's often too late, and now they have much bigger problems to deal with, and few options.
Again, debt does not work like that. If it was tech "debt", 1) someone would have to approve your loan, based on some kind of evidence that you could or would actually pay it back; 2) there would be a mandatory time-frame for paying it back; and 3) if you didn't pay it back, they would literally take your stuff from you. None of that happens with 'tech debt'; there's nothing forcing 'paying it back', nor any idea of how much you 'owe' or what to pay it with. The end result is people just avoid 'paying the tech debt' until a big guy named Louie shows up with a baseball bat, and now he wants 50% interest, and you don't have that kinda money.
Technical debt is all those decisions you make that are not the optimal way of doing things. Eventually I seen entire companies screech into a halt because the code couldn't be reasoned about, things were too fragile so any change caused something else to break, and/or performance was so bad that tjry were bleeding money.
It's all debt. It's time debt. You gotta pay with time for every thing you gotta build, tech debt adds in more time you always gotta pay every time you do things.
I totally agree. Technical debt is a vague metaphor that is not very helpful. It doesn't accelerate discussions. It doesn't help us make better or quicker decisions. In fact the opposite is true, someone will say something about tech debt, everyone will agree (but everyone has their own interpretation so everyone actually thinks something different) and the topic is shoved under the carpet until it becomes relevant again.
I don't like metaphors in general, but this one tops the list.
The problem with this metaphor is that it's the first time I see the term "technical asset". And this is likely due to the fact that it was coined to explain to non-technical people with decisional power why development was getting so slow in certain situations using language they were used to.
But technical assets, or should I say, technical investment is just as important. A 10x developer isn't someone who codes 10 times faster. It's someone who code 10 times less.
Debt is the amount owed on a loan. There is no loan taken out, nor terms. There is no creditor. There is no term sheet. There is no capital. There is no security. There is no debt. It's imaginary. Not imaginary like how money is imaginary. It literally does not exist, in any way shape or form, other than as myth, parable, metaphor, or ghost story. Better not incur tech debt, the boogie man will get ya! (Or, as is much more popular as a rationalization: that debt as fiscal policy is actually a good thing, so 'tech debt' must similarly be good)
If it was real debt, the bank would have called in their loans on the deadbeats and forced them to fix their shit, far more often than actually happens. But it's not debt. It's just lazy people putting off what they don't feel like doing.
The idea behind tech debt is just the state of cheating yourself by doing a shitty thing for short-term gain. It has nothing to do with money. It's an intellectual rationalization for being lazy. ("Hey, it's no big deal that I didn't add security to the web service, it's just tech debt! I'll pay it back later!")
It's like drinking too much booze, eating too much pizza, and not working out, because it's easier to do that now, with the promise of working out later to relieve the "debt". But you never stop pigging out, and you never start working out. It's just cheating yourself in the future to be lazy today with no material consequence.