"Financial debt, however, accrues interest and hurts more regardless of what it is incurred for."
I'd disagree, I think all technical debt accrues interest (similar to financial debt), but the interest rate is different. As the example about a usps api demonstrated, that has a near 0% interest rate. Of course if you were ever to need to update it (maybe usps updated its api) you'd get hit. A bad domain model has a high interest rate. All the ideas are the same though, i'm just being persnickety :D
A problem with comparing the metaphorical debt of technical debt to the financial one is that interest rates can be negative.
In addition, the term "debt" also applies to moral aspects, and not just financial ones. A builder may come back and improve something not because it's good for the employer or has financial benefits, but because of a belief that quality is good for the soul of the builder. That is also an aspect of technical debt.
Regarding the original article, it says tech companies are "successful because they got a product to market fast and at the right time". The "fast" is incorrect. Companies are successful if they are at the right time. If a company (like GO Corporation with pen-based computing) is fast but too early, they they are not successful. If a company (like Microsoft with Excel) is slow but eventually gets there, then they are successful.
"Fast" is therefore irrelevant in the face of "the right time." It can be that the right time is "as soon as possible", but that's not intrinsic to success.
>If a company (like Microsoft with Excel) is slow but eventually gets there, then they are successful.
Excel was successful because Lotus decided 123 had so much technical debt it would be a good idea to "upgrade" the old assembler code to C. This took at least a year longer than planned, and introduced a lot of bugs and incompatibilities.
Meanwhile Windows had arrived, and the planned Windows rewrite of 123 never happened as scheduled.
So it wasn't so much that technical debt killed 123. But poor management of technical debt certainly did.
Effectively the C rewrite was a complete waste of time, and Lotus should have aimed for a Windows release as soon as they could.
It's nice to be able to say this with hindsight, but it was doubtless much less obvious at the time, when Windows was barely considered a mediocre visual DOS shell, and certainly not a serious OS.
Bottom line - you have to be smart, prescient, and a little lucky to manage technical debt. It's not just about getting the code right - it's making decisions with educated guesses about where you may be a year or two from now.
I'd disagree, I think all technical debt accrues interest (similar to financial debt), but the interest rate is different. As the example about a usps api demonstrated, that has a near 0% interest rate. Of course if you were ever to need to update it (maybe usps updated its api) you'd get hit. A bad domain model has a high interest rate. All the ideas are the same though, i'm just being persnickety :D