Understanding Technical Debt

Photo by Tim Gouw on Unsplash

Technical debt, a concept analogous to financial debt, arises in software development when shortcuts are taken or best practices are ignored to expedite the delivery of software. While it can accelerate time-to-market and provide a competitive edge initially, if not managed effectively, it can undermine the long-term quality and value of the software.

“Left unchecked, technical debt will ensure that the only work that gets done is unplanned work!”
― Gene Kim, The Phoenix Project: A Novel About IT, DevOps, and Helping Your Business Win

Types Of Technical Debts

Technical debt can be classified based on area and method of implementations.

Code Debt

Poorly written, hard-to-understand code that may be insecure or unstable. Few examples of Code debt:

• Spaghetti Code: Large functions or methods with deeply nested conditional statements and loops can be difficult to understand and maintain. This violates the principle of clarity in code.
• Hard-coded Values: Using magic numbers or strings directly in code instead of defining constants or enums leads to code that is hard to update and error-prone.
• Lack of Error Handling: Not handling errors properly using Swift’s error handling mechanisms (like try, catch, throw) can result in unstable or unreliable code.
• Poor Memory Management: Not using Swift’s Automatic Reference Counting (ARC) properly can lead to memory leaks or retain cycles, impacting performance and stability.
• Inefficient Algorithms: Using inefficient algorithms or data structures (e.g., using an array where a set would be more appropriate) can lead to poor performance as the size of data grows.

Architectural Debt

Flawed or insufficient architecture that complicates future development.
Few examples of architectural debts:

• Monolithic Architecture: A large, tightly coupled application where different components are heavily interdependent. This makes it difficult to scale, deploy, and update independently.
• Lack of Modularization: Failure to separate concerns and functionalities into modular components or layers. This can lead to code duplication, reduced reusability, and increased complexity.
• Poor Separation of Concerns: Mixing business logic with presentation or data access logic within the same components. This makes the system harder to understand, maintain, and test.
• Inadequate Scalability: Architectures that don’t accommodate future growth or changing requirements efficiently. For example, architectures that struggle to handle increasing numbers of users or transactions.
• Non-Existent or Poorly Defined APIs: Lack of well-defined interfaces between components or services. This can lead to tight coupling, making it difficult to replace or upgrade components without affecting the entire system.
• Overuse of Design Patterns: Using design patterns excessively or incorrectly can lead to unnecessary complexity and overhead in the architecture.
• Inadequate Logging: Insufficient mechanisms for logging meaningful information about system behavior. This can hinder troubleshooting and debugging efforts.

Test Debt

Insufficient or inadequate testing that prolongs bug identification and fixing. Few examples:

• Low Test Coverage: Inadequate test coverage leaves parts of the code untested, increasing the risk of undetected bugs or regressions.
• Fragile Tests: Tests that break frequently due to changes in unrelated parts of the codebase indicate fragile test suites. This can lead to decreased developer confidence in tests and slower development cycles.
• Lack of Automated Tests: Depending too much on manual testing instead of automated tests can slow down the testing process and increase the likelihood of human error.
• Poor Test Quality: Tests that are poorly written, lack clear assertions, or do not accurately simulate real-world scenarios can provide unreliable feedback on the software’s behavior.
• Test Data Management: Insufficient or inconsistent test data can lead to unreliable test results and difficulties in reproducing bugs.
• Slow Test Execution: Tests that take a long time to execute can delay feedback on code changes and reduce developer productivity.
• Testing Environment Issues: Differences between testing and production environments can lead to issues that only appear in production, increasing the risk of post-release failures.
• Ignored Edge Cases: Tests that do not cover edge cases or unusual inputs may miss critical scenarios that could cause failures in production.

Knowledge Debt

Lack of understanding or documentation about software artifacts. Few examples:

• Lack of Documentation: Inadequate or outdated documentation about the software’s architecture, design decisions, or codebase can lead to confusion and inefficiencies when new team members try to understand and contribute to the project.
• Unfamiliar Code: Portions of the codebase that are not well understood by current team members, possibly due to high turnover or lack of thorough onboarding processes.
• Implicit Knowledge: Critical knowledge that exists only in the minds of a few team members and is not shared or documented, making it vulnerable to loss when those individuals leave the team.
• Legacy Systems: Older parts of the software that have not been well-documented or properly transferred knowledge-wise to current team members, leading to difficulties in maintenance and evolution.
• Undocumented Dependencies: Lack of documentation on dependencies between different modules, services, or components, making it hard to predict the impact of changes or troubleshoot issues.
• Outdated Knowledge: Situations where team members are not aware of recent changes or updates in the software or industry practices, leading to suboptimal decisions or implementations.
• Lost Context: Lack of historical context or understanding about why certain design decisions or coding practices were adopted in the past, making it challenging to assess their relevance or impact on current work.

Emerging Debt

Issues arising from outdated technologies or compatibility concerns.
Few examples:

• Obsolete Technologies: Dependence on outdated frameworks or libraries that are no longer supported or updated, leading to security vulnerabilities or compatibility issues with newer systems.
• Legacy Dependencies: Integration with legacy systems or components that are difficult to upgrade or replace due to dependencies on outdated technologies.
• Platform Compatibility: Developing features or applications that work well on current platforms but may face compatibility issues with future operating system updates or new device configurations.
• Browser Compatibility: Building web applications that are optimized for specific browsers or versions, potentially causing issues when users upgrade to newer browsers or versions.
• Deprecation of APIs: Reliance on APIs or services that are deprecated or scheduled for deprecation, necessitating changes to maintain functionality or find suitable replacements.
• Technological Shifts: Changes in industry standards or best practices that render current implementation methods or architectures less effective or efficient over time.
• Hardware Dependencies: Developing software that relies on specific hardware components or configurations, which may become obsolete or difficult to procure in the future.

Causes

Technical debt arises primarily from time pressures, skill gaps, evolving requirements, poor planning, legacy systems, and inadequate testing practices during software development. Time constraints often force developers to prioritize quick solutions over long-term code quality, resulting in accumulated debt as complexity grows. Skill gaps or lack of experience contribute to suboptimal code that requires later refactoring or optimization. Rapidly changing requirements lead to temporary fixes or incomplete features, adding to technical debt as these solutions must be revisited and improved.
Poor planning and design yield architectures that are difficult to scale or modify, increasing debt as systems evolve. Integration with legacy systems introduces debt due to outdated dependencies or practices that hinder maintenance and updates. Inadequate testing practices, like low coverage or reliance on manual testing, allow bugs to persist, escalating maintenance efforts.

Management and Impact

Short-term Gain vs Long-term Impact: While incurring technical debt may speed up initial development, the accumulated “interest” in the form of increased effort for future enhancements or bug fixes can be substantial.
Quantification: It’s crucial to quantify technical debt using metrics like code complexity, test coverage, and architectural reviews. This helps prioritize and communicate the need for debt repayment.
Strategic Debt Management: Mature development teams aim to minimize technical debt unless justified by clear short-term benefits. They track and prioritize repayment efforts alongside new feature development.

Conclusion

Effective management of technical debt requires a balanced approach, considering both immediate business needs and long-term software sustainability. It involves constant evaluation, communication with stakeholders, and disciplined practices to ensure that the software remains valuable and maintainable over time.