zlacker

> There’s a name for misalignment between business intent and codebase implementation: technical debt.

I wish we'd stop redefining this term. Technical debt is a shortcut agreed upon with the business to get something out now and fix later, and the fix will cost more than the original. It is entirely in line with business intent.

>>robert+(OP)
Software is not a liability, it's an asset. If you make it for less then it has a shorter shelf-life. Tech debt is a nonsense term to begin with.

>>robert+(OP)
Exactly. The quote is a great definition of a bug, not debt

>>willia+Z1
I'm going disagree with you. My assets don't wake me up at 3am when they stop working....the best software is no software.

My line of reasoning with an example:

I own a car, and the car itself isn't the value I get from the vehicle. The value is being able to go distant places easily. If I could snap my fingers and travel instantly I wouldn't own a car.

So, software is the value delivery vehicle, but generally not the actual valuable thing (remember that the vast majority of software are CRUD apps that are a step above excel that mainly handle bookkeeping).

>>DerArz+5p5
I'm speaking from the perspective of business and accounting.