this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
16 points (83.3% liked)
Programming
25924 readers
399 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Technical debt is a management term.
The reason we use it is to tell non-technical management people why implementing a simple feature might take an hour on a fresh project and a week on an old legacy project.
It's used to tell them why we shouldn't go with the quickest and dirtiest solution but instead should go with a more expensive proper solution.
It also tells management why we might have to spend some time imrpoving our code base without any tangible improvements to the customer.
And because it's a term that speaks to non-technical management it uses financial language, becausee that's what they understand. Technical debt means "I am choosing to cut corners today, but we will have to pay up in the future by fixing stuff that wouldn't be broken if we do it right today."
And because it's aimed towards non-technical management and not towards developers, it's of course not very specific. Non-technical management doesn't need to understand about dependency hell, unclean code or bad developer documentation. That's not their field and it doesn't have to be.
The real problem in OOPs example wasn't that there's no clear metric or definition of technical debt. The problem was that non-technical managemnt thought that technical debt is an engineering concept instead of a management one, and thought that they themselves were allowed to meddle with it.
The right way to handle that is to ask the people who are actually impacted by technical debt what they want to improve. Any developer can quickly give you a good list of the most pressing tech debt issues in their code base. No need to pull in someone from outside of the project to make up some useless KPIs that will end up missing critical topics.
Btw, engineers already have engineering terms for what's described as technical debt. E.g. "dependency hell", "low test coverage", "outdated dependency", "bad code style", "unoptimized code" and so on. And since these are engineering terms, they actually have specific meanings and most of them are testable and quantifiable in some specific way.
Yes, thank you. It's really as simple as that
The writer made the whole essay because saying "just ask your engineers what they need to improve" wouldn't make him money.
I wonder if the writer ever worked as an engineer.