zlacker

>>moored+(OP)
I couldn't disagree more with this description of why technical debt exists and it's a dangerous line of reasoning. Sure, maybe requirements weren't clarified. But often it's impossible to clarify them and you have to build something and even if the requirements were clear to begin with who is to say they'll still be the same by the time you've finished the project let alone 5 years later. Maybe the develop chose a stable and dependable technology because it's battle worn and proven? Maybe the sales person has to manage an impossible situation between an engineering team which can't commit to the time line needed to win the sale?

There are lots of good reasons tech debt exists, and it's worrying that this person seems to think that they all boil down to "I don't know how but someone, somewhere, fucked up"

>>Silver+Ja
It's worse, they seem to think tech debt is just a "state of mind", a "personality defect":

> The code was calcified because the developers were also. Personality types who dislike change tend not to design their code with future change in mind.

This line of thinking (we will make it with future change in mind!) is of course exactly the bullshit that is tech debt in the first place.