> The fact that this is an article written by a software engineer that completely ignores the missing dependencies bears some irony :-)
I don't think this is the case as the author mentions he assumes Hal follows the boyscout rule:
> at each step of the process leave the camp site a little bit nicer than it was when arriving
Which is the only way to get tech debt under control when tech debt is not a dedicated project (and thus receives no allocation)
It kind of punts on the dependency thing, the idea being that if you notice some small fixable thing then you might as well do it right now.
Which in turn makes the parallel with tech debt all the more on point, the joke being not so much about a singular chain of issues but about the household being absolutely drowned under a gajillion independent issues that keep making everything demoralisingly slow.
I don't think this is the case as the author mentions he assumes Hal follows the boyscout rule:
> at each step of the process leave the camp site a little bit nicer than it was when arriving
Which is the only way to get tech debt under control when tech debt is not a dedicated project (and thus receives no allocation)
It kind of punts on the dependency thing, the idea being that if you notice some small fixable thing then you might as well do it right now.
Which in turn makes the parallel with tech debt all the more on point, the joke being not so much about a singular chain of issues but about the household being absolutely drowned under a gajillion independent issues that keep making everything demoralisingly slow.