# Technical Debt

Software systems are prone to the build up of cruft - deficiencies in

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Status | 5 MIN READ |
| Source | web:martinfowler.com/bliki/TechnicalDebt.html |
| Original | https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TechnicalDebt.html |
| Workspace | Showcase |
| Tags | web, document |

## What it says

**A 5-minute document, structured into 3 sections.**

1,115 words across 3 sections, roughly 5 minutes of reading on martinfowler.com.

Software systems are prone to the build up of cruft - deficiencies in

**Diagram: The document's own headings, in order, sized by how much sits under each. Longest sections are marked.**

- Technical Debt (759 words) [accent]
- Further Reading (330 words) [accent]
- Revisions (18 words) [neutral]
- Technical Debt -> Further Reading
- Further Reading -> Revisions

## Key claims

**What each section of the document is about.**

Taken from the headings and the opening line beneath each. The document's own structure, not an interpretation of it.

- **Technical Debt.** 21 May 2019 Martin Fowler technical debt programming style Software systems are prone to the build up of cruft - deficiencies in internal quality that make it harder than it would ideally be to modify
- **Further Reading.** As far as I can tell, Ward first introduced this concept in an experience report for OOPSLA 1992 .
- **Revisions.** I originally published this post on October 1 2003.

## Receipts

**Quoted from the page, with the heading each line sits under.**

Every line below is verbatim, so the page can be checked against this brief rather than trusted over it.

- **Claim.** The section "Technical Debt" opens on this.
  - Evidence: 21 May 2019 Martin Fowler technical debt programming style Software systems are prone to the build up of cruft - deficiencies in internal quality that make it harder than it would ideally be to modify
  - Where: martinfowler.com — Technical Debt
- **Claim.** The section "Further Reading" opens on this.
  - Evidence: As far as I can tell, Ward first introduced this concept in an experience report for OOPSLA 1992 .
  - Where: martinfowler.com — Further Reading
- **Claim.** The section "Revisions" opens on this.
  - Evidence: I originally published this post on October 1 2003.
  - Where: martinfowler.com — Revisions

## Gaps

**What this brief did not do.**

Worth stating plainly, because a summary that hides its own limits is the thing that builds the debt rather than paying it down.

- **Nothing here was understood** (high)
  - The sections, quotes, and counts are mechanical extractions. No model read the argument, so nothing in this brief tells you whether the page is right, or even coherent.
  - Mitigation: Read the sections marked longest. They are where the reasoning usually is.

## What this brief could not check

- No language model read this page. The outline, the quotes, and the counts are mechanical, so this brief tells you how the document is arranged and nothing about whether its argument holds.