Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • 1
    The problem is when you add a hack here and a hack there and before you know it your hiring ten developers to get fixing all of the hacks that are in place. Hacks are a consequence of poor design. Commented Apr 11, 2011 at 15:12
  • True, but they can also be the consequence of the market and tough business decisions. Also, hacks vary by severity. You're right, and that's why I call it technical debt, because it has to be repaid eventually, and intrest can build up quickly over time until it can be unbearable and your team has to declare bankruptcy and rewrite the thing. Commented Apr 11, 2011 at 15:15
  • 3
    Yes, allowing a hack or two is ok given you allocate time to fix them after the release. This will slow you down after the deadline, but may be worth it (as compared to not releasing at all). Commented Apr 11, 2011 at 15:18
  • martinfowler.com/bliki/TechnicalDebtQuadrant.html - Martin Fowler on Technical Debt: when it's good and when it's not Commented Apr 22, 2016 at 7:08