At Wishtree Technologies, we’re passionate about building innovative digital products. But keeping our codebase healthy and efficient is crucial for sustained success.
Here’s why the term “technical debt” can be misleading, and how we can have more productive conversations about long-term code maintainability.

The Problem with “Tech Debt”

“Tech debt” is a common term, but it often leads to misunderstandings. Different people have different interpretations, causing frustration and hindering collaboration.

Here’s how the “tech debt” metaphor can be problematic:

1. Unclear Definition: What exactly constitutes “bad code”? Is it simply outdated practices, or are there deeper structural issues at play? A one-size-fits-all definition doesn’t capture the nuances.
2. Blame Game: “Tech debt” can feel accusatory, implying past developers made mistakes. This stifles communication and discourages ownership over the codebase’s health.
3. Focus on Rewrites: “Tech debt” can lead to a desire for complete rewrites, neglecting more targeted solutions and potentially introducing new problems.

A Better Approach: Focus on Maintenance Load

Instead of “tech debt,” let’s talk about maintenance load. This term is more objective and measurable. It refers to the amount of time and effort developers spend on non-feature-related tasks, like bug fixes, workarounds, and understanding legacy code.

Benefits of Focusing on Maintenance Load:

1. Clear Communication: By tracking the maintenance load, we can have data-driven conversations with stakeholders. Instead of a vague request for “tech debt relief,” we can pinpoint specific areas that are slowing down development.
2. Shared Ownership: Focusing on maintenance load encourages a collaborative approach. Everyone on the team, not just engineers, has a stake in keeping the codebase efficient.
3. Targeted Solutions: We can identify the root causes of high maintenance load and address them strategically. This could involve refactoring critical areas, improving documentation, or updating deprecated libraries.

Beyond the Basics: A Deeper Look at Technical Debt’s Complexities

Now, we’ll explore some intricate examples of technical debt that software engineers frequently encounter:

• Tight Coupling: Your codebase is like a set of interconnected modules. In an ideal scenario, each module has a clear purpose and interacts with others in well-defined ways. However, tight coupling occurs when modules become overly reliant on each other’s internal workings. Changes to one module necessitate extensive modifications in the other, hindering independent updates or improvements.

Consider this analogy: Tight coupling might involve functions or classes directly referencing each other’s internal code. Altering one function would trigger a cascade of changes throughout the other, slowing development and increasing the risk of errors.

• Monolithic Architecture: Imagine a monolithic architecture as a large, single-unit application. This approach might suffice for a simple project, but as features accumulate, managing, maintaining, and deploying the software becomes cumbersome. Updating a single feature might require modifying the entire codebase, leading to sluggish development cycles.
• Poor Code Design Patterns: What if you are constructing a software system with unconventional or inefficient design patterns. Similarly, selecting poor design patterns can result in an application that’s difficult to understand, test, or scale effectively. This is especially problematic for complex systems or large codebases.

For example: Using a design pattern intended for a small project on a sprawling enterprise application would likely lead to technical debt.

• Version Control Nightmares: What happens when a development project has multiple programmers working simultaneously without any coordination? Version control issues arise when managing code changes made by different developers descends into chaos. This can lead to conflicts, lost work, and difficulty tracing the history of code modifications.
• Legacy Code: Legacy code refers to code written in older languages or frameworks that may still function but can be challenging to maintain, integrate with modern technologies, or find developers with expertise in.
• Security Vulnerabilities: Technical debt can introduce security vulnerabilities if proper security practices are neglected during development. These vulnerabilities can leave your software susceptible to attacks and data breaches.

Investing in the Future

Investing time in maintaining a healthy codebase isn’t a burden, it’s an investment in future agility and efficiency. By focusing on specific, measurable tasks, we can ensure that our clients continue to deliver innovative products at a rapid pace.

How Wishtree Technologies Promotes Code Maintainability

At Wishtree Technologies, we champion a culture of code stewardship. This means:

• Prioritizing Documentation: We encourage clear and consistent documentation to improve code comprehension for everyone.
• Regular Code Reviews: We conduct code reviews to identify potential issues early and ensure adherence to best practices.
• Continuous Learning: We encourage developers to stay up-to-date with the latest technologies and maintain a growth mindset.

By adopting these practices, we can minimize maintenance load and keep our codebase humming for years to come.

Let’s move beyond the “tech debt” conversation and embrace a proactive approach to code maintainability. It’s a win-win for developers, stakeholders, and, ultimately, the success of your digital products.

Wishtree, a product engineering services company with an unmatched reputation, Wishtree Technologies provides solutions to an array of clients, including Fortune 500 companies, Thoma Bravo, Vista Equity Partners, UN Agencies (WHO, UNDP, World Bank) Nonprofits, and Startups.

Contact us today for a free 2-week trial.