On 13/02/20 9:17 AM, Michael Torrie wrote:
On 2/12/20 7:44 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 02/11/2020 04:38 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
...
True. Costs can be calculated and planned for. But Technical debt is
often impossible to quantify in a real, meaningful, business sense,
other than the that
On 2/12/20 7:44 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 02/11/2020 04:38 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
>
>> It's all just different ways of accounting for the same things. In
>> the olden days before the term "technical debt" was invented, we
>> called this "total cost of ownership."
>
> TCO is not a fixed
On 12/02/2020 17:46, Python wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 01:16:03PM +, Rhodri James wrote:
On 12/02/2020 00:53, Python wrote:
In pretty much every job I've ever worked at, funding work (e.g. with
humans to do it) with exactly and precisely the resources required is
basically impossible,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 01:16:03PM +, Rhodri James wrote:
> On 12/02/2020 00:53, Python wrote:
> > In pretty much every job I've ever worked at, funding work (e.g. with
> > humans to do it) with exactly and precisely the resources required is
> > basically impossible, and management prefers to
: Technical debt - was Re: datetime seems to be broken WRT
timezones (even when you add them)
On 12/02/2020 00:53, Python wrote:
> In pretty much every job I've ever worked at, funding work (e.g. with
> humans to do it) with exactly and precisely the resources required is
> basically i
On 02/11/2020 04:38 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
It's all just different ways of accounting for the same things. In the
olden days before the term "technical debt" was invented, we called this
"total cost of ownership."
TCO is not a fixed number. For example, if a loan is taken to help fund a
On 12/02/2020 00:53, Python wrote:
In pretty much every job I've ever worked at, funding work (e.g. with
humans to do it) with exactly and precisely the resources required is
basically impossible, and management prefers to underfund the work
than to overfund it, for cost-savings reasons. This
On 2020-02-12, Chris Angelico wrote:
> But you CAN rewrite code such that it reduces technical debt. You can
> refactor code to make it more logical.
... but if doing so costs more than the debt, you shouldn't do it.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 12:32 PM Michael Torrie wrote:
>
> On 2/11/20 6:15 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 12:13 PM Michael Torrie wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/11/20 5:55 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >>> But you CAN rewrite code such that it reduces technical debt. You can
> >>>
On 2/11/20 6:15 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 12:13 PM Michael Torrie wrote:
>>
>> On 2/11/20 5:55 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> But you CAN rewrite code such that it reduces technical debt. You can
>>> refactor code to make it more logical. You can update things to use
>>>
On 2/11/20 5:53 PM, Python wrote:
> If your hypothetical project was implemented perfectly from the
> beginning, in Python2.x, it may never need updating, and therefore
> there may well never be any reason to port it to python3. So doing so
> would be neither "debt" nor "cost" but rather "waste."
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 12:13 PM Michael Torrie wrote:
>
> On 2/11/20 5:55 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > But you CAN rewrite code such that it reduces technical debt. You can
> > refactor code to make it more logical. You can update things to use
> > idioms that better express the concepts you're
On 2/11/20 5:55 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> But you CAN rewrite code such that it reduces technical debt. You can
> refactor code to make it more logical. You can update things to use
> idioms that better express the concepts you're trying to represent
> (maybe because those idioms require
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 12:00 PM Michael Torrie wrote:
>
> On 2/11/20 5:42 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > Yes, if you consider the term to be synonymous with TCO, then
> > naturally you'll see it as useless. But it isn't. Technical debt is a
> > very specific thing and it CAN be paid off.
>
>
On 2/11/2020 3:09 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
What you're talking about is costs in general, but "debt" is a very
specific term. You accrue technical debt whenever you "borrow" time
from the future - doing something that's less effort now at the
expense of being worse in the future.
A prime
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:48 AM Michael Torrie wrote:
>
> On 2/11/20 5:37 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:32 AM Michael Torrie wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/11/20 2:25 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
> >>> At Chris said moving to python3 will *reduce* your technical debt.
> >>> You are
On 2/11/20 5:42 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Yes, if you consider the term to be synonymous with TCO, then
> naturally you'll see it as useless. But it isn't. Technical debt is a
> very specific thing and it CAN be paid off.
We'll agree to disagree on the last bit. And I'm not the only one that
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 07:09:12AM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 7:03 AM Michael Torrie wrote:
> > Speaking about technical debt is certainly fashionable these days. As
> > if we've somehow discovered a brand new way of looking at things. But
> > it doesn't matter what
On 2/11/20 5:37 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:32 AM Michael Torrie wrote:
>>
>> On 2/11/20 2:25 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
>>> At Chris said moving to python3 will *reduce* your technical debt.
>>> You are paying off the debt.
>>
>> While at the same time incurring new debt.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:39 AM Michael Torrie wrote:
>
> On 2/11/20 1:09 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > What you're talking about is costs in general, but "debt" is a very
> > specific term. You accrue technical debt whenever you "borrow" time
> > from the future - doing something that's less
On 2/11/20 1:09 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> What you're talking about is costs in general, but "debt" is a very
> specific term. You accrue technical debt whenever you "borrow" time
> from the future - doing something that's less effort now at the
> expense of being worse in the future. You pay
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:32 AM Michael Torrie wrote:
>
> On 2/11/20 2:25 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
> > At Chris said moving to python3 will *reduce* your technical debt.
> > You are paying off the debt.
>
> While at the same time incurring new debt.
That's not an intrinsic part of the rewrite,
On 2/11/20 2:25 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
> At Chris said moving to python3 will *reduce* your technical debt.
> You are paying off the debt.
While at the same time incurring new debt.
> Not to mention that its harder to hire people to work on tech-debt legacy
> code.
>
> Given the choice between
> On 11 Feb 2020, at 20:01, Michael Torrie wrote:
>
> On 2/11/20 4:05 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Or just the recognition that, eventually, technical debt has to be
>> paid.
>
> Speaking about technical debt is certainly fashionable these days. As
> if we've somehow discovered a brand new
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 7:03 AM Michael Torrie wrote:
>
> On 2/11/20 4:05 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > Or just the recognition that, eventually, technical debt has to be
> > paid.
>
> Speaking about technical debt is certainly fashionable these days. As
> if we've somehow discovered a brand new
On 2/11/20 4:05 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Or just the recognition that, eventually, technical debt has to be
> paid.
Speaking about technical debt is certainly fashionable these days. As
if we've somehow discovered a brand new way of looking at things. But
it doesn't matter what you do,
26 matches
Mail list logo
