Technical debt is the deficit in code performance created by prioritizing the delivery timeline of a project over its overall quality. Since reducing tech debt is essential for developers and QA, many are looking for ways to reduce dependency and the steps required for installing, running, and updating a production for development projects.
Reducing tech debt comes down to creating an efficient development process that leverages modern solutions. The reality is your code will never be perfect, so you will always carry some tech debt.
Describing the complexity of a Kubernetes cluster will veer very far from a simplified discussion of tech debt, but it is an extensive platform that can benefit from streamlining. One of the easiest ways to reduce technical debt is to minimize and reduce dependencies. Tools like K3s from SUSE, a miniature version of Kubernetes developed through the CNCF sandbox project, do just that.
But for developers who need optimized performance without compromising the functionality of their API, even when working across platforms, the flexibility of the K3s offers unprecedented flexibility for deploying a cluster. It’s a whole new world when it comes to the ways technology is changing the world of web design.
Savvy developers will also reduce technical debt by planning for cycles of catchup. As delivery dates and deadlines come and go, make sure that there is time to pay off the tech debt already on your balance sheet. Otherwise, you risk an unmanageable cascade down the road when your house of hastily-coded cards comes crashing down.
Tech debt is a tool that helps an entity keep its foot to the floor. Bogging down on issues with stubborn legacy code integration or complicated troubleshooting can slow down the entire project’s pace. So, rather than risking falling behind, companies don’t wait until every line of code is perfect before they push it to sales or delivery.
Speed-to-market is essential. Sometimes prioritizing delivery comes at the expense of allowing some tactical maneuvers to shorten development time. Often, that means there’s code included in a deployment that isn’t as polished as it could be with the luxury of much more time.
Every shortcut the development team takes is a bit of design debt that will have to be paid back, just like financial debt. And just like carrying the weight of financial debt carries risk, companies under the weight of substantial unpaid technology play a risky game.
A business that consistently prioritizes deadlines over creating clean code and data solutions with crisp documentation is doomed. Just like a financial debt can drag a company down, the albatross of hefty tech debt can scuttle productivity.
So the risks of absorbing too much design debt need to be mitigated while also maintaining an awareness that budgets and resources are limited. Delivery dates are crucial targets, but the speediness of development can’t sacrifice quality.
If you feel a little bit lost, go back to the basics of coding. From there, consider how big the stakes can be for development teams pushing apps to market that must meet deployment deadlines. These teams can’t afford to tell an investor that the code’s not ready when it needs to be, so they must leverage their technical debt against meeting the terms of their delivery deadlines.
