[jldugger]

> debt, which has to be paid off

Honestly, that's not quite true. If you told management of a source of funding that could fund a couple of developer salaries, and could borrow at zero percent interest, and pay back whenever so desired, then they would rightly point out that the optimal time to pay that debt off is "never."

The key point about technical debt is that quality metrics need to be tied to actual costs incurred, not just 'the software fails to meet my standards.' For example, 'our customer support forum hasn't been updated in years and has been hacked' is a valid technical debt since your staff is now spending time fixing the forum, at substantially greater cost than upgrading.

But maybe removing all the trailing whitespace and replacing all the tabs with spaces has no business related expense, and rewriting your Django app in Go because 'that's where the industry is heading' is paying off the cheap debt first.

[philwelch]

It also depends on the lifecycle of the application. Some applications only exist for 2-3 years, just because of requirements changes; at that point, it's easier to "declare bankruptcy" by deprecating the old code base.

0% interest isn't the best analogy for technical debt, however, because technical debt often carries recurring costs that are analogous to interest. Every time you have to make changes or enhancements to a technically indebted system, the cost of those changes in time, effort, complexity, and bug hazard is higher than it would be in a clean system.

[jldugger]

> 0% interest isn't the best analogy for technical debt, because technical debt often carries recurring costs that are analogous to interest.

My argument is simply that if there is no recurring cost, it's not technical debt. It's just imperfect software that still works without demonstrated problems.

[DennisP]

I would only consider it debt if it's something that's likely to cost significant time later if not fixed. That sort of thing adds up after a while.