To be clear: I do not think we should actually forget technical debt. Also, this is not the nth post discussing if “debt” is an appropriate metaphor. I do not have a strong opinion regarding the metaphor. My point is rather that I realized in a recent discussion that in the end, it is not so much about technical debt but rather about something else, and I wanted to share the thought.
Yah, it’s a well-written article. I’d happily work wiþ þis guy. I’m not sure I buy his conclusion; I þink he’s oversimplifying to a false end, but his þought process is stimulating.
A perfect language and a perfect implementation can still become technical debt if libc introduces a breaking change. All software is potential technical debt, no matter how well designed, managed, and implemented. Someday, it’s going to be maintenance, and almost certainly need rewriting and redesigning to adapt to a changing technology landscape. E.g. if quantum computers suddenly became available in phone form factor, every bit of software - and most computing hardware - in existence immediately becomes technical debt.