Technical Debt

This topic seems to be pretty popular lately. First I saw Martin Fowler's comment on technical debt last week. Then Jeff Atwood brought up the topic in this week's StackOverflow podcast (@53:30).

Basically, technical debt is the price you pay down the road for a "less than optimal" design choice today. I particularly liked Atwood's metaphor that you know you've incurred technical debt when you give a long sigh every time you need to modify some part of the code base. You know that the changes are going to be painful (and expensive) to make. It's time to refactor.

A few comments based on my experience.
  • I've been noticing less technical debt in my own code since starting to follow a test driven development approach more religiously. Maybe there's something about this approach which makes your code more "real than theoretical" from the start. It helps you make better decisions without thinking about it too much. Maybe it's because TDD also keeps you from incurring any unnecessary technical debt from adding unneeded complexity or overbuilding. Or maybe it's because you're constantly refactoring as you add tests for new features and functionality that the technical debt seems less.
  • Maybe lost in this discussion is opposite problem, the technical debt incurred by overbuilding early. I know I've been involved in a few projects where we knew we would need "X" functionality in a later release. Thinking ahead, we knew the best way to deliver "X" was to use technology "A". "A" would be more time consuming and expensive upfront, but there would be less technical debt to deal with in the future. We were planning ahead and we'd be ready! Problem was, dealing with the extra complexity of "A" put us over budget and behind schedule on the current version. The entire project was canceled before ever getting to the later version and all the technical debt we had hoped to save was for not.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I Believe...

A recent reorg at my company left me with a new manager - and a different approach to software development than my team had been previously following.  Our new approach is one that I don’t necessarily agree with, but it led me to think about - and reevaluate -  those tenets of software development that I think are important and that I believe lead to increased quality and productivity. This post will consist of fairly high level discussions about how to organize code, teams, and projects - but contain very little actual code. Many of these ideas will not be my own.  They are mostly ideas I’ve learned from others and their willingness to share their experiences with me.  They are, however, ideas that I’ve practiced and hardened as I’ve worked to build my own ideal environment for delivering value through software . Many of these ideas I now take for granted as commonplace (even though they aren’t).  I felt a need to document them anyway - so people can understand what to expect (a
Read more

Performance Tuning JCAPS - Part 2

It's been close to 2 months since my first Performance Tuning JCAPS post. Since then, we've noticed our servers running out of TCP connections under heavy load. Researching this problem, we learned that the JCAPS' JMS server makes heavy use of TCP in implementing Request/Reply queues . We approached Sun for guidance and they assured us that they've had success implementing high throughput applications using the JMS request reply solution... but how? It appears a multi-step solution is needed. First, running out of TCP connections in a scenario like ours is a JCAPS bug addressed in an ESR (110348) and rolled into JCAPS 5.1.3 Update Release 3 . We installed this update and noticed a marked improvement. Running my simple 75 user simulated test, transactions took 2521 ms to round trip (compared to the previous time of 20128ms). While this is great improvement, an average of 2.5 seconds is still really slow for this simple transaction. We reported our findings to Su
Read more

FRail :include

I really like developing with Rails, but I've been frustrated the last few days by some things Rails should do quite easily, yet doesn't. I've already written here and here about some of my struggles with Rails :include clause. Here's one more... Let's say you have a has-and-belongs-to-many relationship. If you :include this relationship in a find query, Rails will automatically create the join clause including the lookup table! That's cool. Unfortunately, it looks as if only the :include clause provides this piece of functionality. Why isn't the same functionality provided via the :join clause or through a general purpose module? This doesn't make any sense to me! I'm working on a database application where I don't need to display a lot of data, but the data displayed is heavily filtered by it's connections to other information in the database. I need to join a lot of tables to perform the filtering operation and using :include
Read more