I was reading the latest post by John Allspaw when I realized that it sums up perfectly the concept I was referring to when I wrote this post:
"My main argument isn’t that technical debt’s definition has morphed over time; many people have already made that observation. Instead, I believe that engineers have used the term to represent a different (and perhaps even more unsettling) phenomenon: a type of debt that can’t be recognized at the time of the code’s creation. They’ve used the term “technical debt” simply be- cause it’s the closest descriptive label they’ve had, not because it’s the same as what Cunningham meant. This phenomenon has no countermeasure like refactoring that can be applied in anticipation, because it’s invisible until an anomaly reveals its presence."
Feel free to read the complete post here, because it's quite worth it!
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.