That is, debt should be considered in this regard the same as a loan for money. Taking out a loan to get something done quickly and with little effort has a huge benefit. So does picking a framework that you can hire a lot of folks for.
Further, and this can be subtle, if you are going to do this, then you bloody use the money/technology according to the terms of the entity lending. How many people hate maven because they decided that its way just wasn't good and wanted to tweak it? How many people, on immediately taking up a new technology, look for how they want to do it first? Before they have even understood how that technology was made to be used?
This is not to say there may not be reasons to leave or tweak a technology. But, realize for most companies it is not a viable proposition to do so. Instead, accept and leverage the disadvantages and limitations of the technological "debts" you have taken out.
My experience is in medium-sized-institutions rather than giant soft-centric firm like Facebook or Google or the single-web-app startup. I think this is where the majority of programmers still work.
Here, projects "always" last longer than you think and effects of shortcuts accumulate in an unfortunate fashion.
You can say technical here is a "good choice" when it happens to be an unavoidable choice. But when it is an avoidable choice, I see it as "always" a bad choice.
-- And my quoted "always", I mean "often and more often than it is your naive impulse to think so that it's better to say always than to just guesstimate that it might not happen in this case 'cause you'll be swayed by wishful thinking"