For a long time I’d considered technical debt to be just a bad thing. That it was a mess left behind by imprudent coders of the past. I hadn’t paused to reflect on the idea of it.
Only recently did I come to appreciate that tech debt can be a tool, just like monetary debt. Monetary debt is a (hopefully) temporary suboptimal state that’s intentionally entered with an eye toward a long-term goal. E.g., you take on debt to pay for a university degree that you think will result in you having a higher salary in the future. The debt is useful in this way. Tech debt, too, can be useful.
This became clear to me while working on a prototype to test market fit for a potential new feature at work. By making tradeoffs that sacrificed design robustness for speed of implementation, we intentionally introduced tech debt into the system. Designing and implementing a polished, scalable system before knowing whether the offering was valuable to our customers could have been an expensive mistake. Tech debt is allowing us to explore an idea and quickly react to evolving requirements.
Of course, just as with monetary debt, too much tech debt can be disastrous. Tech debt is also harder than monetary debt to measure. Still, it’s a useful tool in some scenarios, and I’m glad I have a more nuanced understanding of it.