[afarrell]

> what academia thinks of technical debt is seriously irrelevant. Academics don't write code for a living. Their take on this matter isn't super important.

I initially agree strongly, but then I remember that labs maintain FORTRAN codebases for years. So I'm curious about their view of technical debt, but its definitely in a different context.

[gopher_space]

I have some experience with older financial and edu systems, and it's definitely a different perspective (from my perspective).

If you have a system that's been modified to handle every edge case encountered in the last decade, and it works, and other people rely on it to do their work, your perspective switches to maintaining the environment the system operates in.

You're looking at automation continuously built around processes that might predate electricity. The interfaces are ingrained into the organization. Other organizations rely on these interfaces and sometimes there are legal responsibilities.

It's a longer-term perspective. Tech debt isn't a crisis, it's an eventuality you try to encapsulate.

[pdimitar]

I agree that there used to be an overlap between an academic and a programmer. But as you pointed out, it hasn't been the case for a long time.

Plus, I'm not really sure good practices mattered to them even back then. Academics, whether they're programmers or not, chase different goals and have other incentives.

Like you, I'd love listening to one of them one day (if anyone speaks up). I'm sure there will be a few pearls of wisdom in such a shared experience.