I think this article is completely stupid, and is "conceptual debt" in not understanding fully what technical debt actually is. This article describes BAD PRODUCT MANAGEMENT.
DEBT is an instrument. A good CTO/Developer will know when the codebase/product/platform is taking on technical debt. The same way you might take debt for a house, and pay back over time so you can LIVE in it.
Shitty CTO's/Developers will take on tech debt without knowing it, and soon enough you're fucked. That's how people become homeless in the real world with real debt. (Well one way)
There is NEVER a time when you want to take on 'conceptual debt' AKA make crap product choices. That is just being stupid or short sighted. The only time to take on conceptual debt is if I am a development agency being paid by rich stupid people, and I want to make as much money as possible and not care about my reputation with them.
DEBT is an instrument. A good CTO/Developer will know when the codebase/product/platform is taking on technical debt. The same way you might take debt for a house, and pay back over time so you can LIVE in it. Shitty CTO's/Developers will take on tech debt without knowing it, and soon enough you're fucked. That's how people become homeless in the real world with real debt. (Well one way)
There is NEVER a time when you want to take on 'conceptual debt' AKA make crap product choices. That is just being stupid or short sighted. The only time to take on conceptual debt is if I am a development agency being paid by rich stupid people, and I want to make as much money as possible and not care about my reputation with them.