Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>One of the hidden costs of bad code is that it is contagious.

That's why the debt analogy fits so well - because technical debt compounds. If your codebase is already heavily in technical debt, when developing new features or fixing bugs you are faced with three equally unpalatable options:

1) Do it properly (takes: 1 month)

2) Don't make it worse; don't make it better (takes: 1 week)

3) Just do a quick hack to work around all of the other hacks (takes: 30 minutes)

As a developer with a pushy boss who doesn't understand technical debt and a tight deadline, the rational choice is pretty obvious: take 3, go home at a reasonable hour to your family, still meet the deadline and drown your professional sorrows in alcohol.



But that isn't taking into effect the contagion issue. In theory your view is the way it works. In practice doing it "properly" comes out half-properly because you spent all your other time maintaining horrible code so that it infects your thought processes and design.

The problem is this. Let me put it clearly:

If you are maintaining bad code, it will take you several tries to come up with a good architecture to replace it. You will make better progress having someone entirely outside do the architecture themselves.

OTOH, if employers are going to use credit scores to decide whether to hire you, then technical debt may be an even better metaphor if you factor that in ;-)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: