<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Architecture on shaun mccormick</title>
    <link>https://splittingred.com/tags/architecture/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Architecture on shaun mccormick</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:45:03 -0600</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://splittingred.com/tags/architecture/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Why the Way We Look at Technical Debt Is Wrong</title>
      <link>https://splittingred.com/blogs/why-the-way-we-look-at-technical-debt-is-wrong/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:45:03 -0600</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://splittingred.com/blogs/why-the-way-we-look-at-technical-debt-is-wrong/</guid>
      <description>This post is cross-posted from bigeng.io — feel free to read there!
I’ll be straightforward at the start of this post: I firmly believe that the most important issue a company deals with is how it reconciles itself with technical debt. Period.
Now, here’s the real point of this post:
Technical Debt is a Positive and Necessary Step in software engineering.
First off, let’s define technical debt for the purposes of this post, as the words can mean many different things to different people.</description>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>
