[EarthLaunch]

Usually it's hard to quantify technical debt. And anyway, when debt is first accumulated, it has no downsides. When you first take out a loan, you don't pay anything for the first month. Without understanding the long term nature of debt and interest, you will see it as free money.

Business leaders have wisely learned how finances work, and financial debt. We need to learn how software engineering works, and technical debt. It's relatively new. Business has a long history, going back to the days of kings. Imagine a conversation with a king who hadn't learned about financial instruments.

King: We need to raise an army.

Duke: Okay, but we're out of money. We'd have to borrow more.

King: Are we able to borrow money for it?

Duke: Yes, but our debts are racking up, and there could be future consequences.

King: Sounds like we can borrow money, do it.

[magicalhippo]

A better term might be "technical mass". Having lots of it makes it harder to quickly implement changes and features.

It would also better cover the fact that work must be done to get rid of the excess mass. Calling it debt might undersell how easy it is to get rid of it.

Though if business folks didn't take physics classes it might not resonate well with them.

[verve_rat]

I like that. More mass slows everything down and makes changing direction harder.

[muzani]

Technical calories then?

[muzani]

That's exactly how startups think, though. The king raises an army to conquer rich lands and pay off debt. The founder makes hacky products, to get users, then raises money to hire engineers.

[EarthLaunch]

It has to be moderated by comprehension. If a leader doesn't understand what interest rates are, they'll borrow money every time it's available. A startup needs to borrow enough to succeed, but not so much to be bankrupted by debt payments. Same for technical debt; enough to move fast, but not so much the software (or staff) collapses before revenue.