Bringing that back to tech debt: a simple kind of high-interest short-term debt would be committing code without tests or documentation. Yay, it works, ship it! And truthfully, maybe you should, because the revenue (and customer feedback) you get from shipping fast can outweigh how much more bug-prone you made the code in the short term.
But like all high-interest debt, you should plan to pay it back fast. Tech debt generally manifests as a slowdown in your development velocity (ie. overhead on everything else you do), which means fewer features launched in the medium-long term, which means less revenue and customer feedback.
[...]
Bankruptcy
The tech bankruptcy metaphor is an easy one: if refinancing doesn't work and your tech debt continues to spiral downward, sooner or later your finances will follow. When you run out of money you declare bankruptcy; what's interesting is your tech debt disappears at the same time your financial debt does.
This is a really important point. You can incur all the tech debt in the world, and while your company is still operating, you at least have some chance of someday paying it back. When your company finally dies, you will find yourself off the hook; the tech debt never needs to be repaid.
Okay, for those of us grinding away at code all day, perhaps that sounds perversely refreshing. But it explains lots of corporate behaviour. The more desperate a company gets, the less they care about tech debt.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026
28 points (91.2% liked)
Programming
27744 readers
477 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This is a great description, I have not heard of the technical bankruptcy metaphor.
I don't think companies outside of Anthropic and OpenAI are acting rationally though. The whiplash policy decisions of CEOs and CFOs about workplace AI use, first being ecstatically for it, then reversing themselves after weeks/months, and only now asking where their IP went. I think it's more likely they were unaware of the risks, not just technical debt but also the financial cost, privacy concerns and data protection, and the addiction aspect, making your workforce dependent on an external knowledge model that can be changed, upgraded, turned off entirely without your control, and never considered whether openai was reliable or sustainable. That's not even getting into whether the model itself is reliable or not: the power structure inherent in serving chatbots of any kind is going to have these lock-in and privacy concerns.
Business leaders are slowly learning about the cost and data concerns, but I don't think they are quite done being irrational yet. It's obvious technical debt is not a concern to them, and hasn't been even from the before time. Ed Zitron goes into this more, but the entire tech sector is inflated with debt, and 'zombie unicorns' are becoming more common, companies with impossible expectations placed on them to grow revenue. That might explain the wreckless decisions to incorporate ai, but I still don't think it was rational, other than in the sense that a lot of them must feel hopeless and are just grasping at straws.
The entire software industry will have a reckoning soon. AI maybe sped up its arrival but I don't think sustainable business practices have been in vogue in silicon valley for decades.
He also describes the analogon to financial restructuring of debt (giving up some products or features because you can't support them any more) and the massive costs in terms of trust that bankruptcy has as a consequence.
That could be the case.
There is also the situation with tons of AI filtered CVEs. In theory, the EU cyber resilency directive should address that .... but it is not possible to address literally decades of technical debt with processes that only optimized for short-term revenue. Might turn out that some smart home technology was not so smart, and smart factory tech neither.
iiot is an overlooked timebomb of incompetence.
true.