I think the article is a bit abstract with the concept of technical debt.
I want to see something that explains technical debt for what it is: a mismatch between a data structure that served a purpose in the past, that can be simplified, wasn’t, and now not only it is complex but also the wrong solution to current needs (e.g. a lack of a certain feature), for example. It may be other things: a source of uncertainty, and therefore of delays and confusion when onboarding new people.
I want to see more concrete terms than help reify the concept of “technical debt”. Not just for us, but everyone.
I tend to think of it as any technological decision that is cheap to implement (on a variety of axes, including politically, but mostly capex) but which costs more to maintain ruining opex (or similar ongoing costs, like sleepless nights that would cost a startup more if it wasnt the founder)
I think the article is a bit abstract with the concept of technical debt.
I want to see something that explains technical debt for what it is: a mismatch between a data structure that served a purpose in the past, that can be simplified, wasn’t, and now not only it is complex but also the wrong solution to current needs (e.g. a lack of a certain feature), for example. It may be other things: a source of uncertainty, and therefore of delays and confusion when onboarding new people.
I want to see more concrete terms than help reify the concept of “technical debt”. Not just for us, but everyone.
I tend to think of it as any technological decision that is cheap to implement (on a variety of axes, including politically, but mostly capex) but which costs more to maintain ruining opex (or similar ongoing costs, like sleepless nights that would cost a startup more if it wasnt the founder)