1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,560
Welcome to the deep dive. 
We're here to help you get up to

2
00:00:02,560 --> 00:00:05,240
speed fast on, well, pretty 
complex topics. 

3
00:00:05,240 --> 00:00:07,760
We know your time is valuable, 
so we do the digging for you, 

4
00:00:08,039 --> 00:00:10,280
pulling out the key insights 
from the sources. 

5
00:00:10,960 --> 00:00:13,240
Today we're tackling something 
really central in software 

6
00:00:13,240 --> 00:00:16,320
engineering, but honestly, it's 
ideas reach way further. 

7
00:00:16,440 --> 00:00:20,040
We're talking about technical 
debt, and our guide for this is 

8
00:00:20,040 --> 00:00:23,440
the in depth section on it from 
Marco Tulia Valente's Software 

9
00:00:23,440 --> 00:00:26,240
Engineering text. 
Our mission basically is to 

10
00:00:26,240 --> 00:00:29,320
unpack what technical debt 
really means, why you should 

11
00:00:29,320 --> 00:00:32,640
care, and how to think about it 
strategically. 

12
00:00:33,040 --> 00:00:35,200
It sounds technical, right? 
But it's actually got huge 

13
00:00:35,200 --> 00:00:37,960
strategic implications. 
Or it can be a hidden trap. 

14
00:00:38,080 --> 00:00:40,120
Exactly. 
In understanding this, it's just

15
00:00:40,120 --> 00:00:42,400
invaluable, not only for 
engineers, really anyone in 

16
00:00:42,400 --> 00:00:45,640
project management, product 
development, you know, it 

17
00:00:45,640 --> 00:00:47,280
matters. 
And what's really neat is how 

18
00:00:47,280 --> 00:00:50,640
this analogy, this finance 
analogy, sheds light on some 

19
00:00:50,640 --> 00:00:53,480
very real technical challenges. 
It really helps bridge that gap,

20
00:00:53,560 --> 00:00:55,760
you know, between the tech side 
and the business side. 

21
00:00:55,880 --> 00:00:58,840
OK, so let's get into it. 
We hear technical debt thrown 

22
00:00:58,840 --> 00:01:00,880
around a lot. 
What is it actually? 

23
00:01:00,880 --> 00:01:02,600
Where did this whole debt idea 
come from? 

24
00:01:02,680 --> 00:01:04,760
Right. 
So the term itself, technical 

25
00:01:04,760 --> 00:01:06,440
debt, it was coined by Ward 
Cunningham. 

26
00:01:06,440 --> 00:01:11,080
This was back in 1992. 
And his reason, pretty practical

27
00:01:11,080 --> 00:01:13,440
actually. 
He needed a label, a wait to 

28
00:01:13,440 --> 00:01:17,200
talk about these technical 
issues, the kinds of problems 

29
00:01:17,200 --> 00:01:20,920
that can really slow down how a 
system is maintained or how it 

30
00:01:20,920 --> 00:01:23,720
evolves later on. 
Think of like, like friction 

31
00:01:23,720 --> 00:01:26,520
under the surface makes 
everything harder than it feels 

32
00:01:26,520 --> 00:01:27,800
it should be. 
So you know, the stuff that 

33
00:01:27,800 --> 00:01:31,320
builds up when you maybe cut 
corners or don't quite build 

34
00:01:31,320 --> 00:01:33,800
things ideally. 
OK, so it's about spotting those

35
00:01:33,800 --> 00:01:36,800
hidden drags on the system. 
Can you give us some concrete 

36
00:01:36,800 --> 00:01:38,480
examples? 
But what does this actually look

37
00:01:38,480 --> 00:01:39,720
like? 
The source must have some. 

38
00:01:39,720 --> 00:01:41,160
Oh yeah. 
Absolutely, and they're quite 

39
00:01:41,160 --> 00:01:43,640
clear. 
For instance, a lack of tests. 

40
00:01:45,040 --> 00:01:48,360
Imagine building something 
complex, maybe a robot arm, 

41
00:01:48,480 --> 00:01:50,080
right? 
You have no quick way to check 

42
00:01:50,080 --> 00:01:51,680
if all the parts are working 
together correctly. 

43
00:01:51,680 --> 00:01:54,440
After you change something 
without tests, every little 

44
00:01:54,440 --> 00:01:56,400
tweak, every adjustment, it 
becomes a gamble. 

45
00:01:56,480 --> 00:01:59,320
You're just hoping for the best,
and if it breaks, figuring out 

46
00:01:59,320 --> 00:02:01,960
why it takes forever. 
That's a huge chunk of technical

47
00:02:01,960 --> 00:02:03,240
debt right there. 
Risky. 

48
00:02:03,480 --> 00:02:05,520
Definitely. 
Then they are architectural 

49
00:02:05,520 --> 00:02:07,880
issues. 
The source even uses this great 

50
00:02:07,880 --> 00:02:11,039
phrase systems that are a big 
ball of mud. 

51
00:02:11,560 --> 00:02:14,040
A big ball of mud. 
OK, that paints a picture. 

52
00:02:14,040 --> 00:02:16,840
It really does. 
It describes a system with no 

53
00:02:16,840 --> 00:02:20,200
clear structure. 
It's all tangled U like imagine 

54
00:02:20,200 --> 00:02:23,360
a house built with no blueprint,
just adding rooms wherever, 

55
00:02:23,600 --> 00:02:26,680
wires everywhere. 
You try to fix a dripping tap 

56
00:02:26,680 --> 00:02:29,640
and suddenly the kitchen lights 
flicker because you know who 

57
00:02:29,640 --> 00:02:32,360
knows how it's connected. 
It makes understanding things, 

58
00:02:32,480 --> 00:02:35,320
changing things incredibly 
difficult without breaking 

59
00:02:35,320 --> 00:02:36,840
something else. 
It just kills agility. 

60
00:02:36,880 --> 00:02:39,080
Wow. 
Yeah, that sounds like a 

61
00:02:39,080 --> 00:02:41,840
developer's nightmare. 
What else falls under this dead 

62
00:02:41,840 --> 00:02:43,840
umbrella? 
Well, there are systems with 

63
00:02:43,840 --> 00:02:46,960
many code smells. 
No, the source doesn't spell out

64
00:02:46,960 --> 00:02:50,440
exactly what code smells are 
here, but think of them as like 

65
00:02:50,960 --> 00:02:53,560
warning signs in the code. 
They're not necessarily bugs 

66
00:02:53,560 --> 00:02:56,400
crashing the system right now, 
but they point to deeper design 

67
00:02:56,400 --> 00:02:59,040
issues. 
Poor practices makes the code 

68
00:02:59,040 --> 00:03:02,760
hard to read, hard to maintain. 
It's like a weird smell in a 

69
00:03:02,760 --> 00:03:04,160
room. 
Doesn't mean the house is 

70
00:03:04,160 --> 00:03:06,080
falling down, but something's 
not right. 

71
00:03:06,240 --> 00:03:08,360
Needs looking at. 
It definitely slows developers 

72
00:03:08,360 --> 00:03:12,440
down, makes them hesitant. 
OK, subtle but problematic. 

73
00:03:12,560 --> 00:03:16,160
Any others and a. 
Really simple one, but a huge 

74
00:03:16,160 --> 00:03:18,160
impact. 
Systems without any 

75
00:03:18,160 --> 00:03:20,960
documentation at all. 
I mean, if you've ever tried to 

76
00:03:20,960 --> 00:03:23,680
assemble furniture without 
instructions, you get it. 

77
00:03:24,000 --> 00:03:26,000
Oh yeah, frustrating. 
Exactly. 

78
00:03:26,320 --> 00:03:29,000
Now imagine that for a complex 
software system. 

79
00:03:29,440 --> 00:03:33,000
New person joins the team. 
They might spend weeks, maybe 

80
00:03:33,000 --> 00:03:35,560
months, just trying to figure 
out how things work because 

81
00:03:35,560 --> 00:03:38,640
nothing was written down. 
No diagrams, no notes, nothing. 

82
00:03:38,640 --> 00:03:41,040
All these things, they don't 
break the system immediately. 

83
00:03:41,040 --> 00:03:44,080
But boy did they make everything
slower and harder. 

84
00:03:44,120 --> 00:03:45,840
This is where it gets really 
interesting for me though. 

85
00:03:46,200 --> 00:03:49,640
Cunningham picking the word debt
that feels so intentional. 

86
00:03:49,640 --> 00:03:51,080
Why not technical mess or 
something? 

87
00:03:51,080 --> 00:03:51,640
Why? 
Debt. 

88
00:03:51,640 --> 00:03:54,160
Oh, it was absolutely 
intentional and frankly quite 

89
00:03:54,160 --> 00:03:57,520
brilliant for communication. 
His goal was to find a term that

90
00:03:57,520 --> 00:04:00,000
wouldn't just click with 
engineers, but crucially with 

91
00:04:00,000 --> 00:04:03,000
managers, with product people, 
stakeholders who maybe don't 

92
00:04:03,000 --> 00:04:06,280
live and breathe code. 
He needed something that 

93
00:04:06,280 --> 00:04:09,080
connected to their world, 
something that clearly stated 

94
00:04:09,280 --> 00:04:11,640
the cost of taking these 
technical shortcuts. 

95
00:04:11,840 --> 00:04:13,560
The cost? 
Right, exactly. 

96
00:04:14,080 --> 00:04:17,440
By choosing debt, he immediately
brought in this familiar idea. 

97
00:04:17,839 --> 00:04:19,800
If you don't pay it down, you're
going to pay interest. 

98
00:04:20,320 --> 00:04:22,160
And everyone understands 
interest, right? 

99
00:04:22,400 --> 00:04:24,800
It's that ongoing penalty. 
It keeps costing you. 

100
00:04:25,440 --> 00:04:28,440
So the analogy perfectly framed 
these technical issues not as 

101
00:04:28,440 --> 00:04:31,920
one off problems, but as things 
with compounding ongoing 

102
00:04:31,920 --> 00:04:34,240
negative effects. 
If ignored, it helped 

103
00:04:34,240 --> 00:04:38,320
non-technical folks grasp the 
real accumulating consequences. 

104
00:04:38,480 --> 00:04:41,280
That is smart. 
Using finance language just cuts

105
00:04:41,280 --> 00:04:42,200
right through. 
OK. 

106
00:04:42,200 --> 00:04:47,200
So if we don't pay off this 
technical debt, if we let it sit

107
00:04:47,200 --> 00:04:50,800
there, what does this interest 
actually look like day-to-day? 

108
00:04:50,880 --> 00:04:53,120
What are the real costs? 
Well, the source lays it out 

109
00:04:53,120 --> 00:04:56,160
pretty clearly, this interest, 
it shows up in ways that hit 

110
00:04:56,160 --> 00:04:58,640
productivity, flexibility. 
The bottom line really. 

111
00:04:58,640 --> 00:05:01,240
First off, you get inflexible 
and difficult to maintain 

112
00:05:01,240 --> 00:05:03,080
systems. 
Imagine trying to change 

113
00:05:03,080 --> 00:05:04,640
something that's just rigid and 
brittle. 

114
00:05:05,040 --> 00:05:06,320
It fights you every step of the 
way. 

115
00:05:06,480 --> 00:05:08,360
Small changes become huge 
efforts. 

116
00:05:08,360 --> 00:05:10,120
The system just resist being 
adapted. 

117
00:05:10,360 --> 00:05:13,000
Forget innovating quickly. 
For a product manager, this is 

118
00:05:13,000 --> 00:05:15,680
features taking forever. 
For project managers, deadlines 

119
00:05:15,680 --> 00:05:16,680
just slip and. 
Slip. 

120
00:05:16,800 --> 00:05:18,800
So it's like trying to run with 
weights on your ankles. 

121
00:05:18,840 --> 00:05:20,880
Just this constant drag. 
Exactly. 

122
00:05:20,880 --> 00:05:22,840
A constant drag. 
And that leads right into the 

123
00:05:22,840 --> 00:05:25,800
next big thing. 
Bug fixes becoming increasingly 

124
00:05:25,800 --> 00:05:29,520
time consuming and risky, which 
should be a quick fix in a clean

125
00:05:29,520 --> 00:05:31,720
system. 
It can turn into days of work if

126
00:05:31,720 --> 00:05:34,720
there's a lot of debt, and every
time you try to fix one bug you 

127
00:05:34,720 --> 00:05:37,880
risk creating two more somewhere
else because everything's 

128
00:05:37,880 --> 00:05:39,880
tangled. 
It's this frustrating cycle of 

129
00:05:39,880 --> 00:05:42,880
fix break fix again. 
Ometimes you add more debt 

130
00:05:42,880 --> 00:05:44,840
trying to fix things. 
Eh, OK. 

131
00:05:44,920 --> 00:05:47,600
And tied right into that, the 
imlementation of new features 

132
00:05:47,600 --> 00:05:50,080
becomes increasingly time 
consuming and risky too. 

133
00:05:50,600 --> 00:05:53,800
AME roblem really adding 
something new to a system choked

134
00:05:53,800 --> 00:05:56,160
with debt? 
It's like building an extension 

135
00:05:56,160 --> 00:05:57,800
on a house with shaky 
foundations. 

136
00:05:57,800 --> 00:05:59,760
You have to carefully work 
around all the existing 

137
00:05:59,760 --> 00:06:01,760
problems. 
Often you have to kind of hack 

138
00:06:01,760 --> 00:06:04,280
things in. 
Takes longer, costs more, higher

139
00:06:04,280 --> 00:06:06,840
chance of errors, market 
opportunity to get missed. 

140
00:06:06,840 --> 00:06:09,560
It's not just an engineering 
headache, it's a major business 

141
00:06:09,560 --> 00:06:11,440
problem when you can't deliver 
reliably. 

142
00:06:11,600 --> 00:06:14,240
OK, that paints A clearer 
picture, but it still feels 

143
00:06:14,240 --> 00:06:18,000
maybe a bit theoretical. 
Can you give us that concrete 

144
00:06:18,000 --> 00:06:20,000
example from the source? 
Something with numbers to really

145
00:06:20,000 --> 00:06:23,840
show the cost of this interest. 
Yes, absolutely. 

146
00:06:23,840 --> 00:06:25,840
The source has a perfect simple 
example. 

147
00:06:26,480 --> 00:06:28,720
OK, imagine you have a program 
and you need to add a new 

148
00:06:28,720 --> 00:06:33,480
feature, let's call it F1. 
Now if this program has a fair 

149
00:06:33,480 --> 00:06:38,240
bit of technical debt, messy 
code, no tests, you know the 

150
00:06:38,240 --> 00:06:40,600
drill. 
May be implementing F1 takes you

151
00:06:40,600 --> 00:06:42,760
3 days. 
OK, three days start to finish. 

152
00:06:42,760 --> 00:06:43,880
Got it. 
Three days with debt. 

153
00:06:44,120 --> 00:06:46,080
Right now, here's the 
comparison. 

154
00:06:46,320 --> 00:06:49,360
What if that same program had no
technical debt? 

155
00:06:50,000 --> 00:06:52,240
It's clean, well designed, 
documented, tested. 

156
00:06:52,760 --> 00:06:56,720
Implementing that exact same 
feature, F1 would only take two 

157
00:06:56,720 --> 00:06:58,720
days. 
That difference, that extra day,

158
00:06:58,880 --> 00:07:01,040
that is the interest you paid 
because of the technical debt. 

159
00:07:01,320 --> 00:07:04,080
It's the extra time, the extra 
effort, the extra cost that you 

160
00:07:04,080 --> 00:07:06,360
incurred purely because the 
system wasn't healthy. 

161
00:07:06,560 --> 00:07:09,320
It's a direct, measurable cost 
of that inefficiency. 

162
00:07:09,520 --> 00:07:10,840
That one day is the interest 
payment. 

163
00:07:10,920 --> 00:07:16,000
Wow, OK, seeing it as one extra 
day per feature, that really 

164
00:07:16,000 --> 00:07:18,280
makes it tangible. 
It's not fuzzy anymore. 

165
00:07:18,800 --> 00:07:20,840
Which leads to the obvious next 
question, right? 

166
00:07:21,280 --> 00:07:23,640
Can you actually get rid of it? 
Can you pay off the principal 

167
00:07:23,640 --> 00:07:25,880
like a loan and stop paying that
interest? 

168
00:07:26,080 --> 00:07:28,960
Yes, you can. 
That's definitely an option. 

169
00:07:28,960 --> 00:07:31,720
The source mentions you can 
choose to pay off the principal,

170
00:07:32,280 --> 00:07:35,360
which means taking the time 
making the effort to actually 

171
00:07:35,360 --> 00:07:38,280
fix those underlying problems. 
You refactor the messy code, you

172
00:07:38,280 --> 00:07:42,040
add the missing tests, write the
documentation, fix the bad 

173
00:07:42,040 --> 00:07:44,880
architecture, and the example 
continues. 

174
00:07:45,160 --> 00:07:47,280
Let's say doing all that clean 
up work, removing the debt 

175
00:07:47,280 --> 00:07:50,800
entirely, it takes you 4 days. 
That's the upfront investment. 

176
00:07:50,800 --> 00:07:51,840
OK, wait, so let me get this 
straight. 

177
00:07:52,040 --> 00:07:54,680
Yeah, adding F1 with debt takes 
three days, removing the debt 

178
00:07:54,680 --> 00:07:57,200
takes four days, and then adding
F1 takes 2 days. 

179
00:07:57,440 --> 00:08:00,320
So paying it off means it takes 
six days total versus just three

180
00:08:00,320 --> 00:08:01,880
days if I ignore the debt for 
now. 

181
00:08:02,360 --> 00:08:05,080
Just looking at feature F1, 
paying off the principle seems 

182
00:08:05,840 --> 00:08:07,960
like a bad deal. 
Why would you spend 6 days when 

183
00:08:07,960 --> 00:08:10,200
you could spend 3? 
You've absolutely nailed the 

184
00:08:10,200 --> 00:08:12,880
crucial point there, and that 
highlights the strategic 

185
00:08:12,880 --> 00:08:15,680
decision perfectly. 
You're right, if your horizon is

186
00:08:15,680 --> 00:08:20,240
only that one feature, F1, then 
the math says no advantage to 

187
00:08:20,240 --> 00:08:24,480
paying off the principal 6 days 
versus 3 for just that one task.

188
00:08:24,480 --> 00:08:27,360
It looks like the wrong move, 
and this is often why debt 

189
00:08:27,360 --> 00:08:29,720
accumulates. 
The short term view wins, right?

190
00:08:30,360 --> 00:08:33,760
But, and this is the big but, 
the source immediately asks us 

191
00:08:33,760 --> 00:08:36,240
to consider the longer term. 
It says, suppose that over the 

192
00:08:36,240 --> 00:08:38,760
next few months we will need to 
implement more features such as 

193
00:08:38,760 --> 00:08:42,039
F2F3F4, etcetera. 
Now the whole picture changes. 

194
00:08:42,280 --> 00:08:44,720
In that scenario where you know 
you'll be doing more work on 

195
00:08:44,720 --> 00:08:47,960
this system, then eliminating 
the principal suddenly looks 

196
00:08:48,040 --> 00:08:51,520
worthwhile. 
That initial four day investment

197
00:08:51,520 --> 00:08:54,680
to clean things up? 
It means F2 only takes 2 days, 

198
00:08:54,680 --> 00:08:57,160
F3 only takes 2 days, F4 only 
takes 2 days. 

199
00:08:57,800 --> 00:08:59,600
I see the savings add up. 
Exactly. 

200
00:08:59,720 --> 00:09:01,640
Each subsequent feature is now 
faster. 

201
00:09:02,120 --> 00:09:05,640
That one day saving repeats over
and over, so that initial four 

202
00:09:05,640 --> 00:09:08,680
day cost pays for itself pretty 
quickly, and then you're just 

203
00:09:08,680 --> 00:09:11,160
reaping the benefits. 
All future development becomes 

204
00:09:11,160 --> 00:09:15,000
faster, cheaper, less risky. 
It's trading that short term hit

205
00:09:15,000 --> 00:09:19,160
for long term speed and agility.
It's fundamentally A strategic 

206
00:09:19,160 --> 00:09:21,040
choice. 
So boiling it all down, 

207
00:09:21,200 --> 00:09:24,640
technical debt isn't some 
obscure your techie problem. 

208
00:09:24,640 --> 00:09:26,520
It's really a strategic choice, 
isn't it? 

209
00:09:26,800 --> 00:09:29,600
It has these compounding 
effects, good or bad, depending 

210
00:09:29,600 --> 00:09:31,440
on whether you tackle it or let 
it grow. 

211
00:09:31,440 --> 00:09:34,840
It affects everything. 
Timelines, budgets, your ability

212
00:09:34,840 --> 00:09:37,440
to actually build new things. 
Precisely understanding this 

213
00:09:37,440 --> 00:09:40,280
analogy, this whole debt 
concept, it just helps frame 

214
00:09:40,280 --> 00:09:43,040
these critical decisions so much
better in development and 

215
00:09:43,040 --> 00:09:45,240
planning Rd. maps, even just 
managing projects. 

216
00:09:45,240 --> 00:09:48,600
It makes the link really clear 
between what you do or don't do 

217
00:09:48,680 --> 00:09:51,560
right now and how easy or hard 
things are going to be down the 

218
00:09:51,560 --> 00:09:53,320
road. 
It shines a light on those 

219
00:09:53,320 --> 00:09:55,440
hidden costs that can really 
bite you later. 

220
00:09:56,080 --> 00:09:57,840
Thank you for joining us on this
deep dive. 

221
00:09:57,840 --> 00:10:00,240
We hope you feel a bit more 
informed now about the real 

222
00:10:00,240 --> 00:10:02,000
meaning and impact of technical 
debt.