Re:How to approach and prioritize technical debt
by louwrentius on Tuesday February 01, 2022 @02:47AM
(#30159701)
This discussion is fine in and of itself. This discussion and any outcomes have nothing to do with technical debt.
If stakeholders are aware of design decisions and related cost + understand the potential trade-off, that’s it.
No need to add concepts like technical debt. And this example would not even be technical debt according to Ward Cunningham’s definition.
Re:How to approach and prioritize technical debt
by anamax on Wednesday February 02, 2022 @02:54PM
(#30183078)
It's not clear how to distinguish my example from every other shortcut that people do to get things out the door. (It's not the numbers - growth can jump to 100% if marketing gets its act together.)
While Ward Cunningham may have introduced the term, his definition is obviously not the one that most people use, so it's pretty irrelevant.
Are we talking about mistakes?
Suppose that I build a system that has capacity 1M when the usage is 100 and growing at 10% a month. That system will be inadequate eventually, but it won't be for some time.
Should I have built a system with capacity 10M instead? Would it have been horrible if I'd only built for 100k. (It's unclear why those 10xs are different.) Should I have built a system with "infinite" capacity? Does the answer depend on how much each alternative costs?