0 Comments

Spurred on by this video, we’ve been discussing the concept of technical debt, so this post is going to be something of an opinion piece.

I mean, what does everyone need more than anything? Another opinion on the internet, that’s what.

To be harsh for a moment, at a high level I think that a lot of the time people use the concept of technical debt as a way to justify crappy engineering.

Of course, that is a ridiculous simplification, so to extrapolate further, lets look at three potential ways to classify a piece of code:

  • Technical debt
  • Terrible code
  • Everything else

The kicker is that a single piece of code might be classified into all three of those categories at different points in its life.

Blood Debt

Before we get into that though, lets dig into the classifications a bit.

For me, classifying something as technical debtimplies a conscious, well founded software related decision was made, and that all of the parties involved understood the risks and ramifications of that decision, and agreed upon a plan to rectify it. Something like “we will implement this emailing mechanism in a synchronous way which will present a longer term scaling problem, if/when our total usage approaches a pre-defined number we will return to the area and change it to be asynchronous in order to better deal with the traffic”. Generally, these sorts of decisions trade delivery speed for a limitation of some sort (like pretty much all code), but the key difference is the communication and acceptance of that limitation.

Honestly, the definition of technical debt outlined above is so restrictive that it is almost academic.

Terrible codeon the other hand is just that. You usually know it when you see it, but its code that hurts you when you try to change or understand it.

For me, any single element out of the follow list is a solid indication of terrible code:

  • No automated tests
  • Poorly written tests
  • Constant and invasive duplication
  • Having to update all seven hundred places where a constructor is instantiated when you change it
  • Massive classes with many responsibilities
  • Repeated or duplicated functionality
  • Poor versioning

I could go on and on, but the common thread is definitely “things that make change hard”. Keeping these sorts of things at bay requires consistent effort and discipline, especially in the face of delivery pressure, but they are all important for the long term health of a piece of software.

The last category is literally everything else. Not necessarily debt, but not necessarily terrible code either. In reality, this is probably the majority of code produced in the average organization, assuming they have software engineers that care even a little bit. This code is not optimal or perfectly architected, but it delivers real value right now, and does only what it needs to do, in a well engineered way. It almost certainly has limitations, but they are likely not widely communicated and understood.

Now, about that whole fluidity thing.

Fluid Dynamics

Over its lifetime (from creation to deletion), a single piece of software might meet the criteria to be classified into all of the definitions above.

Maybe it started its life as an acceptable implementation, then coding standards changed (i.e. got better) and it was considered terrible code. As time wore on, perhaps someone did some analysis, communicated its limitations and failings and put a plan into place to fix it up, thus mutating it into debt. Maybe a few short months later the organization went through a destructive change, that knowledge was lost, and the new developers just saw it as crappy code again. Hell, sometime after that maybe we all agreed that automated tests aren’t good practice and it was acceptable again.

Its all very fluid and dynamic, and altogether quite subjective, so why bother with classifications at all?

I suppose its the same reason for why you would bother trying to put together a ubiquitous language when interacting with a domain, so you can communicate more effectively with stakeholders.

There is value in identifying and communicating the technical limitations of a piece of software to a wider audience, allowing that information to be used to inform business decisions. Of course, this can be challenging, because the ramifications have to be in terms the audience will understand (and empathize with), or the message might be lost.

But this comes with the problem of safely accumulating and storing the knowledge so that it doesn’t get lost, which is one of the reasons debt can mutate into terrible codeover time. This requires a consistent application of discipline over time that I have yet to bear witness to. It’s also very easy for this sort of debt registerto just turn into everything we don’t like about the codebase which is not its intent at all.

Moving away from debt, drawing a solid line between what is acceptable and what is not (i.e. the terrible code definition) obviously has beneficial effects on the quality of the software, but what happens when that line moves, which it is almost certain to do as people learn and standards change? Does everything that was already written just become terrible, implying that it should be fixed immediately (because why draw a line if you tolerate things that cross it) or does it just automatically become debt? It seems unlikely that the appropriate amount of due diligence would occur to ensure the issues are understood, and even less likely that they would be actioned.

In the end, a classification system has to provide real value as an input to decision making, and shouldn’t exists “just because”.

Conclusion

Being able to constantly and consistently deliver valuable software is hard, even without having to take into account what might happen in the future. I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t have a solid history of anticipating future requirements.

Classifying code is a useful tool for discussion (and for planning), but in the end, if the code is causing pain for developers, or issues for clients, then it should be improved in whatever way necessary, as the need arises. There is no point in going back and fixing some technical debt in an arcane part of the system that is not actively being developed (even if it is actively being used), that’s just wasted effort. Assuming it does what its supposed to of course.

The key is really to do as little as possible, but to do it while following good engineering practices. If you do that at least, you should find that you never reach a place where your development grinds to a halt because the system can’t adapt to changing circumstances.

Evolve or die isn’t a suggestion after all.

Post comment