←back to thread

AI makes tech debt more expensive

(www.gauge.sh)
466 points 0x63_Problems | 1 comments | 14 Nov 24 16:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.323s | source
Show context
dkdbejwi383 ◴[14 Nov 24 16:51 UTC] No.42138113[source]▶
> However, in ‘high-debt’ environments with subtle control flow, long-range dependencies, and unexpected patterns, they struggle to generate a useful response

I'd argue that a lot of this is not "tech debt" but just signs of maturity in a codebase. Real world business requirements don't often map cleanly onto any given pattern. Over time codebases develop these "scars", little patches of weirdness. It's often tempting for the younger, less experienced engineer to declare this as tech debt or cruft or whatever, and that a full re-write is needed. Only to re-learn the lessons those scars taught in the first place.

replies(8): >>42138467 #>>42138490 #>>42138644 #>>42138759 #>>42139133 #>>42141484 #>>42142736 #>>42143702 #
1. nicce ◴[14 Nov 24 21:36 UTC] No.42141484[source]▶
> Over time codebases develop these "scars", little patches of weirdness. It's often tempting for the younger, less experienced engineer to declare this as tech debt or cruft or whatever, and that a full re-write is needed. Only to re-learn the lessons those scars taught in the first place.

Do you have an opinion when this maturity is too mature?

Let's say, you would need to add a major feature that would drastically change the existing code base. On top of that, by changing the language, this major feature would be effortless to add.

When it is worth to fight with scars or just rewrite?