Ask HN: Should we call it 'aesthetics' instead of 'technical debt'? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Should we call it 'aesthetics' instead of 'technical debt'?

3 pointsactinium2269 comments

There's a couple reasons I don't feel the term 'technical debt' is very good:

- There's an implication that it should be 0, but anyone who's ever worked on a large enough project will tell you that any large project will have some technical debt. When you get down to practical implementation there's always tradeoffs that have no single clear answer

- There's this dissonance where the things that are called 'technical debt' are potentially serious enough to cause problems, but not serious enough for anyone to actually prioritize dealing with them.

Using the description 'aesthetics' makes more sense to me

- I think it's inherent that aesthetics has a subjective element and that there's no way to drive it down to 0 or 100 or whatever.

- I think it helps with prioritization by setting the right context. "Removing technical debt" doesn't sound like a particularly productive activity, but "improving aesthetics," while clearly not as high priority as, say, "improving functionality," at least carries the connotation that something will get improved as a result of the work, even if it's something not totally tangible.

What are HN's thoughts? Are there other words besides aesthetics or technical debt we could/should be using?

Absolutely not, it is often the accusation from manegerial types that fixing technical debt is just vanity and aesthetics. And then when it blows up, they blame you anyway.

I think technical debt is accurate, because you don't pay down debt to 0. A certain amount of obligations is normal in a business. But you don't want it to compound and get out of control.

Alternatively you could say something like cruft or looming danger, if you see great damage coming to the business.

I prefer "habitability" over either term. "This place is a mess, we're constantly tripping over things, how about we make it a more habitable codebase to work in?"

No matter what you call it, though, if teams aren't empowered/encouraged to make the code more habitable, it won't happen. You could call it "partying" instead of "removing tech debt" and folks still won't do it if the system around them discourages it ("must work on next feature now!").

That's a great one. Habitability implies that we are preventing avoidable dangers. It's also gives a connotation of positive-feeling ownership, i.e. a home, as opposed to ownership of something 'bad' like debt.

I would tack on 'hospitality.' It isn't just a great place for us to stay, but an inviting and comfortable place for guests, visitors, and others unfamiliar with the layout of the property.

My team recently started working on another department's codebase. It is quite habitable to the current owners but inhospitable to me and my co-workers. It's hard to learn their conventions, no matter how consistent and logical they may be.

I've also heard this referred to as "quality of life" for developers.

"partying" sounds like the kind of term scrum people use

"Anesthetics" implies that the improvements are completely optional and non-impactful, whereas "technical debt" implies that you are paying for the privilege of forgoing the improvement (like how keeping a balance on a line of credit means paying interest) . It doesn't cost you anything more to live in an ugly house, but it sure costs more to have a bigger mortgage.

If you really don't like the term debt, "technical hangover" sorta conveys the same idea.

I think technical debt is accurate. Too much or the wrong kind is bad, too little and you probably aren't making the best choices and moving as quickly as you otherwise could. Technical Debt doesn't have anything to do with aesthetics, it is more about what short cuts you took to get where you are, short cuts that could hamper future improvements or reduce the quality of the work.

I like calling them chores. It correctly conveys that they are boring tasks that have to be done.

This has been the most useful analogy for me so far.

"Why are we trying to fire Bob when he gets things done?"

"Bob cooks fast because he refuses to clean the dishes."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com