Forem: Priya Moghe

The AI Awareness Gap: Living in the Tech Bubble While the World Catches Up

Priya Moghe — Fri, 07 Mar 2025 07:47:02 +0000

As a 25-year-old who has traversed the path from designer to full-stack developer, I've found myself increasingly immersed in what I call the "AI bubble." Inside this bubble, ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and dozens of specialized AI tools are everyday companions—so commonplace that it's easy to forget that not everyone shares this reality.

The Revelation

I had my wake-up call during a family dinner last month. My aunt, a seasoned corporate lawyer with 20 years of experience, was complaining about spending hours drafting preliminary case analyses. When I casually mentioned she could use ChatGPT to create initial drafts, her expression shifted from exhaustion to confusion.
"You mean that robot thing that makes pictures?" she asked.
This wasn't an isolated incident. My uncle, who meticulously researches investment opportunities, spent weeks gathering information about gold monetization schemes. When I showed him how Perplexity could compile and synthesize that research in minutes, he was simultaneously amazed and slightly irritated at the hours he'd wasted.
These moments made me realize: the gap in AI literacy isn't just between tech and non-tech sectors—it's a chasm.

The Surprise Within Tech

What's more surprising is finding this gap within the technology industry itself. In my previous role, I discovered that one of my managers—a senior developer—wasn't even aware of GitHub Copilot and how it integrates with VS Code. When I used it to accelerate my coding, he expressed concern that the company would reprimand me for "using AI to generate code and not writing it on my own."
This disconnect extended to our business analyst who had no idea about any AI tools. Instead of comprehensive documentation, I received random notes strung together with basic diagrams (she didn't know Figma either).
The most egregious example came when our company, despite limited knowledge about generative AI, decided to build their own LLM from scratch. They wasted countless months and substantial resources on this venture when all they really needed was a helpful chatbot trained on company data to help users learn more about their products. A pre-trained model with some fine-tuning would have accomplished this goal in a fraction of the time.
It wasn't just about wasting time but also squandering money. These valuable resources could have been directed toward more pressing needs, like rewriting legacy code for current frameworks. The irony reached its peak when the company later initiated massive layoffs, citing how "AI reduces the workload of employees, hence we need fewer employees to do the same amount of work"—all while most of the decision-makers demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the very technology they used to justify cuts.
This contradiction reflects a broader pattern in the industry: organizations racing to implement AI technologies—or use them as justification for restructuring—while many of their decision-makers don't understand what these tools actually do or how they could be effectively integrated into existing workflows.

Bridging the Gap

I've started to see this awareness gap as a responsibility for those of us inside the bubble. Not in a condescending "let me show you the future" way, but through practical demonstrations that connect directly to people's daily challenges.
When I showed my aunt how to use an AI assistant to create the first draft of a standard cease and desist letter, she didn't just see a cool technology—she saw 45 minutes of her day reclaimed. That's the language that matters.
The most effective bridge-building moments haven't come from explaining how large language models work or discussing transformer architectures. They've come from simply sitting next to someone struggling with a repetitive task and saying, "Can I show you something that might help?"

Looking Forward

As AI tools become more powerful and more specialized, this awareness gap risks widening rather than narrowing. The sheer volume of new applications makes it challenging even for those within the bubble to stay current.
Perhaps the most important conversation isn't about artificial intelligence at all—it's about human communication. How do we translate the benefits of these tools into terms that resonate with daily human experiences? How do we ensure that technological literacy becomes a bridge rather than another dividing line in society?
For now, I'm starting small. I've scheduled a "Tech Thursday" lunch with my team where we each share a tool we've discovered. I'm helping my aunt create templates for her most common legal documents. And I'm learning to step outside my bubble more often, to remember that what seems obvious within my daily context remains mysterious—and potentially transformative—to many others.
The AI revolution isn't just about building better models or more impressive applications. It's about ensuring that the benefits reach beyond the bubble, into courtrooms, classrooms, small businesses, and family dinner tables. That's the gap we need to close.

Migrating a Large Platform to Imba: Benefits and Adoption Challenges

Priya Moghe — Sun, 10 Nov 2024 10:57:14 +0000

As web development frameworks continue to evolve, newer technologies like Imba are emerging as powerful alternatives to traditional JavaScript and popular frameworks like React, Angular, and Vue. Imba’s unique architecture and optimizations offer compelling performance and productivity gains, making it particularly attractive for complex, high-traffic platforms like MakeMyTrip. However, despite its potential, Imba faces significant challenges in adoption—especially in markets like India, where the JavaScript ecosystem is deeply entrenched.

In this article, we’ll outline the benefits of Imba for large-scale projects and discuss the challenges associated with its adoption, providing a balanced perspective on how and why to consider this promising framework.

1. Imba’s Advantages Over Traditional JavaScript

Imba offers several benefits over conventional JavaScript, positioning itself as an appealing choice for high-performance web applications. Here are some key advantages that set it apart:

A. Performance Optimization

Faster Rendering: Imba uses a memoized DOM approach, which allows for more efficient rendering than the virtual DOM used in frameworks like React and Vue. This results in faster load times and improved runtime performance, which is especially beneficial for large, data-intensive applications.
Reduced Bundle Size: Imba’s concise syntax results in smaller codebases. Less JavaScript to load means faster page loads, a crucial advantage for improving user experience and search engine optimization (SEO) on high-traffic sites.

B. Simplified Syntax

Concise and Readable Code: Imba features a streamlined syntax that eliminates the need for curly braces and semicolons. Its indentation-based structure makes the code cleaner and reduces cognitive load, allowing developers to write and debug code faster.
Integrated Styling: Inspired by utility-first frameworks like Tailwind CSS, Imba allows for inline styling directly within components. This integrated approach reduces the need for constant context-switching between files, improving efficiency.

C. Built-in Data Binding

Efficient Synchronization: Imba provides built-in data binding, synchronizing data between the user interface and application logic without needing external libraries. This improves responsiveness and reduces the overhead of additional dependencies.

D. Component-Based Architecture

Reusable Components: Like popular JavaScript frameworks, Imba supports a component-based architecture that encourages encapsulation and reusability. This design helps developers maintain modular, scalable code for large applications, a necessity for projects like MakeMyTrip.

E. Enhanced Error Handling

Better Debugging Experience: Imba includes advanced error handling, offering clear and descriptive error messages that make debugging easier and faster, reducing the time spent troubleshooting compared to standard JavaScript.

F. Focused Tooling Support

Minimal, Focused Ecosystem: While JavaScript’s ecosystem can be overwhelming with a large number of tools and libraries, Imba’s ecosystem is more focused. This makes it easier for developers to navigate without needing to evaluate numerous tools, enhancing productivity.

G. Full-Stack Capabilities

Frontend and Backend Development: Imba can be used across the full stack with Node.js, allowing for a unified language experience on both the frontend and backend. This simplifies development processes and helps smaller teams manage their codebases more efficiently.

2. Challenges in Adopting Imba in Markets Like India

Despite its impressive features, Imba’s adoption is relatively slow in India and other regions where the JavaScript ecosystem is dominant. Here are the main factors that contribute to this hesitance:

A. Lack of Awareness

Limited Exposure: Imba is still emerging as an alternative to popular frameworks, and many developers in India may be unaware of its advantages. The absence of widespread exposure and recognition limits its adoption.

B. Established Ecosystem

Strong JavaScript Community: JavaScript has a vast, mature ecosystem with established libraries, frameworks, and tooling. Developers and companies have invested in JavaScript-based workflows, and moving to Imba would require overcoming the inertia of existing community support and resources.

C. Learning Curve

Transition Complexity: Imba’s syntax differs considerably from JavaScript, which can be a barrier for developers proficient in JavaScript. Many companies may avoid the steep learning curve associated with training developers on a new language, especially when JavaScript’s tools meet their needs.

D. Integration Challenges

Compatibility with Existing Projects: Most web projects in India use JavaScript-based frameworks. Integrating Imba into these projects might require significant refactoring, an investment that many organizations might be unwilling to undertake due to budget or resource constraints.

E. Risk Aversion

Preference for Stability: Many companies prioritize stability and community support when choosing development frameworks. With its smaller user base and shorter track record, Imba is perceived as a riskier choice compared to well-established alternatives.

F. Limited Local Community Support

Smaller User Base: The limited community around Imba in India means fewer local resources for troubleshooting and collaboration. Developers often prefer frameworks with larger communities and accessible support, which aids in knowledge sharing and problem-solving.

G. Focus on Popular Frameworks

Development Trends: Current web development trends heavily favor frameworks like React, Angular, and Vue. These technologies dominate the job market, making it difficult for newer frameworks like Imba to gain traction, even if they offer technical advantages.

3. A Strategic Path Forward: Leveraging Imba’s Strengths Gradually

To address these challenges, companies like MakeMyTrip could explore a gradual approach to adopting Imba. Here’s how:

Start with Pilot Projects: Begin with less critical features to test Imba’s performance benefits and gain familiarity.
Use a Component-Based Architecture: Replace JavaScript components with Imba incrementally, allowing the two languages to coexist.
Upskill Developers Gradually: Provide targeted training and documentation to support developer growth without overwhelming the team.

Conclusion

Imba presents several advantages over traditional JavaScript frameworks: its performance optimizations, streamlined syntax, and built-in data binding make it a strong contender for high-performance web applications. However, the current dominance of the JavaScript ecosystem, especially in markets like India, along with Imba’s limited community support, creates barriers to widespread adoption.

For companies interested in the benefits Imba offers, a gradual transition can provide a balanced way to explore its potential while maintaining operational stability. This approach allows developers to experience Imba’s strengths firsthand, helping to build confidence in the framework’s viability as a long-term solution for high-performance, scalable web applications.

FAQs

1.What makes Imba faster than JavaScript?
Imba uses a memoized DOM approach that enables more efficient rendering than virtual DOMs, resulting in faster load times and smoother interactions.

2.Is Imba difficult to learn for JavaScript developers?
Imba’s syntax is different from JavaScript’s, but with training, JavaScript developers can transition to it smoothly, especially with a component-based approach.

3.Can Imba work alongside JavaScript?
Yes, Imba compiles to JavaScript, allowing for hybrid applications where Imba components coexist with JavaScript.

4.What challenges does Imba face in India?
Limited awareness, a strong JavaScript ecosystem, and a smaller local community make it challenging for Imba to gain traction in India.

5.Why should companies consider Imba for large applications?
Imba’s optimized performance and efficient syntax make it an excellent choice for data-heavy applications, offering improved load times and developer productivity.

6.How can companies transition to Imba gradually?
Start with pilot projects, upskill developers, and replace JavaScript components incrementally to ease into the transition.

PWAs vs. Native Apps and Websites: Choosing the Right Technology for the Best User Experience

Priya Moghe — Mon, 04 Nov 2024 07:12:43 +0000

As the digital landscape grows, businesses and developers face the challenge of choosing between Progressive Web Apps (PWAs), native apps, and traditional websites. Each has its advantages and challenges, and understanding these can guide the best choice for different user and business needs. This article explores the key aspects of each, including compatibility, cost, accessibility, and user engagement, to help clarify when each approach is most effective.

What Are Progressive Web Apps (PWAs)?

PWAs combine the best features of mobile apps and websites. Designed to run in a browser, they offer app-like functionality while being platform-independent, making them accessible on Android, iOS, Windows, and other platforms. PWAs are built using standard web technologies like HTML, CSS, and JavaScript and can be saved to a home screen just like an app, which offers both familiarity and convenience for users.

Universal Compatibility of PWAs

One of the standout features of PWAs is their universal compatibility. Because they’re accessible on any device with a browser, users can enjoy a seamless experience regardless of the device or operating system. Native apps, by contrast, are developed for specific platforms, such as iOS or Android, making cross-platform functionality more challenging and costly to achieve.

Cost-Effectiveness of PWAs vs. Native Apps

Developing a PWA can be significantly more cost-effective than building separate native apps for multiple platforms. With a single codebase that works across devices, PWAs reduce development and maintenance costs. Native apps, however, often require different versions and coding languages for each operating system, leading to higher costs and longer development timelines.

Instant Access with PWAs

One of the major user-friendly aspects of PWAs is instant access through any browser, with no download or installation required. Unlike native apps, which typically need to be downloaded from an app store, PWAs allow users to start interacting with the app immediately. This feature reduces barriers to entry and can increase engagement since users don’t have to wait for a download or worry about storage space.

Automatic Updates Without User Intervention

PWAs are designed to update automatically in the background, ensuring users have access to the latest version without the need to manually download updates. This seamless updating process contrasts with the requirements of many native apps, which often notify users to update or require users to initiate downloads, adding an extra step that may interrupt the experience.

Search Engine Visibility

Unlike native apps that are limited to app stores for discoverability, PWAs are indexed by search engines, allowing businesses to use search engine optimization (SEO) techniques to reach a wider audience. This feature makes PWAs more visible online, providing an additional way for businesses to drive organic traffic.

Lightweight and Efficient Design

PWAs generally consume less storage than native apps, as they don’t require full installations. For users with limited storage capacity, this lightweight design is a distinct advantage. For example, a PWA may use only a fraction of the space required by its native counterpart, giving users greater flexibility with their device storage.

Offline Functionality with PWAs

Through the use of service workers, PWAs offer offline functionality by caching essential resources. This feature ensures users can still interact with the app even in low or no-connectivity situations. Native apps also support offline features, but PWAs manage this with minimal storage requirements, providing flexibility for users in various environments.

Simplified Distribution Process

Since PWAs don’t require app store approvals, they offer developers an easier and faster way to launch their applications. This simplified distribution allows businesses to avoid the approval and moderation processes required for native apps, expediting the time-to-market and avoiding potential delays associated with app store guidelines.

Personal Experience with PWAs

I discovered the advantages of PWAs firsthand. While frequently visiting Pinterest and Twitter on my laptop, I found that opening the website every time was inconvenient, especially since a native app wasn’t available on macOS. When I learned about the option to “install” these apps through my browser (Brave), it was a game-changer. Suddenly, I had app-like access to these platforms without the need to download anything or use up my storage. This experience introduced me to the convenience of PWAs and highlighted how they bridge the gap between a typical website and a traditional app.

As someone with a background in website development and some experience building Android apps, I found PWAs particularly appealing. I could see how they provide a versatile, accessible, and cost-effective solution, especially for users who need platform flexibility or who face challenges with app store restrictions (like my own issue with resetting a forgotten App Store password on macOS).

Conclusion – Which Option Is Best?

Choosing between a PWA, native app, or traditional website depends on specific goals, budget, and user needs. PWAs offer significant advantages in terms of cost-effectiveness, compatibility, and accessibility, making them an ideal choice for businesses seeking a wide reach without the high costs associated with native app development. Native apps, however, are better suited for scenarios requiring deep integration with device hardware or performance-intensive applications.

For many businesses, PWAs present a balanced solution that combines the accessibility of a website with the functionality of an app. As the capabilities of PWAs continue to grow, they are becoming a powerful choice for delivering efficient, engaging, and highly accessible user experiences.

FAQs

1.Are PWAs better than native apps?
PWAs are often more cost-effective and universally accessible, but native apps may offer better performance for resource-intensive applications. The best option depends on the specific needs of the business.

2.Can PWAs be used offline?
Yes, PWAs use service workers to cache resources, enabling offline functionality for users even when there’s no internet connection.

3.Do PWAs work on iOS?
Yes, PWAs are compatible with iOS, though some limitations exist due to iOS restrictions on certain PWA features.

4.How do PWAs save storage space?
PWAs don’t require full installation like native apps, making them lightweight and more storage-efficient.

5.Is it easier to launch a PWA than a native app?
Yes, PWAs don’t require app store approval, which simplifies the deployment process and reduces barriers to entry.

6.Can PWAs help with SEO?
Absolutely. PWAs are indexed by search engines, allowing businesses to leverage SEO strategies to drive organic traffic.

React Fatigue: Why Some Devs Are Moving On

Priya Moghe — Fri, 01 Nov 2024 06:04:44 +0000

Don’t get me wrong—I love React. I started learning it in 2021 when hooks were all the rage, and React was on the rise. Compared to the Java boilerplate I had to learn in college, JavaScript and React felt refreshing. I dove into Scrimba’s frontend path for React, where building mini-projects was both fun and informative. Coming from a UI/UX background, I also loved the clean UIs I could build using React’s design libraries.

But recently, React’s appeal seems to be slipping. There are growing conversations around its issues, which may explain why some big names in tech are pulling away. So, what’s going on with React?

Why React’s Popularity is Fading

React has its strengths—especially in complex projects needing advanced state management—but those strengths often come with the trade-off of heavy client-side JavaScript. In simpler or performance-heavy applications, this can create sluggish user experiences, which is a big drawback for companies prioritizing speed.

Some recent criticism, summarized well in an article on Picallilli, highlights how deeply embedded React is, making it hard to replace despite the backlash. The author points out that even as alternative frameworks rise, React has a huge existing codebase that will keep it relevant for a long time. Plus, React’s commitment to evolve, like adding support for custom elements (web components) in version 19, might make migrations and flexibility easier.

Big Companies Are Moving On

It’s not just developers questioning React—companies are acting on it.

Netflix has announced a move to Vanilla JS for some projects, Microsoft is opting for web components in Edge, Shopify is moving away from React on some projects, Airbnb is leaning toward OS-specific frameworks for mobile apps instead of React Native, and Gusto’s Kelly Sutton is switching to StimulusJS.

The trend toward framework-agnostic solutions is growing, with companies focusing more on performance, flexibility, and avoiding the weight that React often brings.

The Price of Staying Current

React’s regular updates and feature releases can be both a blessing and a curse. A recent article argued that React’s rapid evolution means companies almost need to rewrite apps every 2.5 years, which is tough. Teams that don’t update frequently risk accumulating tech debt, and new developers end up managing transitions from versions like React 17 to 19, which can be frustrating.

On Building My Own Blog

This whole debate even had me reconsidering my own tech stack for a new blog site I want to build. My initial portfolio site was built with React and deployed on Vercel, but this time, I explored options like Next.js, Gatsby, Astro, and Hugo. Since SEO is a priority for the blog, I narrowed it down to Gatsby and Hugo. I read about Hugo and Go’s simplicity—some developers claim new users can write solid Go code within a week, while React often feels like it needs a PhD to keep up with new hooks and features. So, I’m going with Hugo, and I might pick up some Go along the way. But don’t worry, I’m not abandoning React!

When React Still Shines

At the end of the day, tech choice depends on the project and the team’s expertise. React remains strong in areas needing sophisticated state management and rich interactivity. For smaller or simpler projects, though, it’s hard to ignore the pull of lighter, more flexible alternatives.

The Evolution of React Interviews: Moving Beyond Class Components in 2024

Priya Moghe — Tue, 29 Oct 2024 08:12:34 +0000

The Current State of React Interviews

In 2024, it's not uncommon to encounter interview questions like:

"Implement a class component with lifecycle methods"
"Convert this functional component to a class component"
"Explain how to handle state using this.setState()" I’ve noticed something interesting: while bootcamps and interviews often focus heavily on class components, modern React development has moved almost entirely towards functional programming. This disconnect got me thinking: Are we really testing the skills that matter today?

Why We Need to Evolve Our Approach

1. Mental Models Matter

React isn't just about syntax – it's about thinking in terms of:

Data flow
State management
Component composition

Class components force developers to think in an object-oriented way, while React's true power lies in functional programming patterns. This cognitive disconnect can hinder developers from fully grasping React's modern paradigms.

2. Modern React is Fundamentally Functional

Since the introduction of Hooks in 2018, the React ecosystem has undergone a profound transformation. Today's React development centers around:

Custom hooks for logic reuse
Function composition for building complex components
Pure components for predictable behavior
Immutable state patterns for better performance
Effect management through useEffect
State management via useState and useReducer

3. Shifting Paradigms

The contrast between class-based and functional approaches is stark. Class components align more closely with Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) principles, commonly seen in languages like Java and C++, while React's functional approach leans toward composition and declarative patterns, which are core to JavaScript’s strengths.

Class Approach	Modern Functional Approach
Inheritance hierarchies	Component composition
`this.setState()`	`useState` / `useReducer`
Lifecycle methods	`useEffect`
Class methods	Pure functions
Complex binding patterns	Closure-based state

What We Should Focus On Instead

1. Core Functional Concepts

Understanding hooks and their use cases
State management patterns
Component composition principles
Performance optimization techniques
Custom hook creation
Side effect handling

2. Modern Development Patterns

Code splitting and lazy loading
Error boundaries
Context management
Server components (React 18+)
Concurrent features

Real-World Impact

While legacy codebases still exist, new development overwhelmingly favors functional components. Here's a simple comparison:

Old approach (Class Component)

// Old approach (Class Component)
class UserProfile extends React.Component {
  constructor(props) {
    super(props);
    this.state = { user: null };
  }

  componentDidMount() {
    fetchUser(this.props.id).then(user => {
      this.setState({ user });
    });
  }

  render() {
    const { user } = this.state;
    return user ? <div>{user.name}</div> : <div>Loading...</div>;
  }
}

Modern approach (Functional Component)


// Modern approach (Functional Component)
function UserProfile({ id }) {
  const [user, setUser] = useState(null);

  useEffect(() => {
    fetchUser(id).then(setUser);
  }, [id]);

  return user ? <div>{user.name}</div> : <div>Loading...</div>;
}

The functional approach is:

More concise
Easier to understand
More maintainable
Less prone to bugs
Easier to test

The Path Forward

While understanding class components might help with maintenance work, the real value lies in mastering hooks and functional patterns. Interview processes should evolve to reflect this reality by:

Focusing on functional component implementation
Testing understanding of hooks and their use cases
Evaluating knowledge of modern React patterns
Assessing ability to compose and optimize components
Checking familiarity with current best practices

The Bottom Line

The future of React is functional. Our hiring practices should reflect this reality. By aligning our interview processes with current development practices, we can better evaluate candidates' ability to contribute to modern React applications.

What are your thoughts? How has your organization adapted its interview process to reflect modern React development? Share your experiences in the comments below.

Tech Debt: A Bigger Problem Than AI Takeover

Priya Moghe — Sun, 27 Oct 2024 06:23:46 +0000

As a junior developer stepping into the tech world, I was excited to finally work on code that would drive real innovation. The thrill of coding, creating, and contributing to impactful projects felt almost tangible. But this initial excitement faded fast. Instead of building new features or diving into cutting-edge technologies, I found myself spending most days tangled in a web of legacy code, some of it dating back two decades.

The Reality Check: Legacy Code Over Innovation

In my first project, I encountered a React-based solution riddled with inefficient code, which made it painfully hard to follow and even harder to maintain. The setup, structured around outdated paradigms and patched with quick fixes, often took precedence over developing quality software. As a junior developer still gaining my footing, I struggled to understand the tangled codebase. Mistakes were inevitable—my focus at that point was simply to get things working rather than refining them for long-term sustainability. The real kicker? My company didn’t seem to mind, as long as the functionality was there. Quality, maintainability, and developer experience were secondary.

Testing and Its Brief Impact on Code Quality

At one point, I joined a different project and got a taste of what maintaining code quality can look like. I was introduced to unit testing with Jest, where writing and maintaining reliable tests suddenly made me see the difference quality code could make in real productivity. The structured approach to testing created a codebase that was both easier to understand and less prone to errors, offering a level of predictability I hadn’t experienced in my initial project. But this experience was brief. Soon, I was back to the original chaotic environment—one without any consistent project management or dedicated support.

With no project manager or scrum master to guide me, and my senior manager juggling numerous other tasks, I felt stranded in a sea of tasks, firefighting and patching things up without any guidance on proper code practices. I wasn’t alone in this situation. Across the industry, junior developers are often thrust into similar scenarios, finding themselves responsible for complex tasks without the resources, training, or structure to tackle them effectively.

Why Companies Still Focus on DSA in Hiring—And Why They Shouldn’t

Despite these challenges, many companies are still testing developers on data structures and algorithms (DSA) during recruitment, skills that are no longer as relevant to daily development as they once were. Most AI systems can solve standard DSA problems in an instant; yet the focus remains on solving contrived coding puzzles rather than real-world scenarios that test how developers prioritize clean code, handle code quality, and understand the long-term cost of neglecting maintainability.

Real engineering is about more than just coding: it’s about knowing where to look for resources, deciding how to implement sustainable solutions, and problem-solving in ways that account for long-term technical debt. While AI can speed up the writing of code snippets readily available online, true value in software engineering lies in creativity, judgment, and a problem-solving mindset. Writing code is the easy part—creating solutions that are maintainable, scalable, and well-documented requires skill and foresight.

AI Anxiety and the Pressure to Deliver Quickly

Many engineers are justifiably worried about AI replacing their jobs, especially when we’re stuck maintaining outdated systems or completing repetitive tasks. This fear may even be creating a culture of rushed development, where managers push for quick delivery without proper quality controls, expecting AI tools to handle future fixes and improvements. In reality, cutting corners on quality only adds to the technical debt developers face, ultimately increasing costs rather than reducing them. It’s a cycle that increases stress, undermines employee trust, and prevents companies from building resilient, innovative solutions.

The Cost of Technical Debt: More Than Just a Developer Problem

Technical debt isn’t an abstract concept; it’s a very real burden. Developers are reported to spend between 25% and 40% of their time addressing technical debt, according to industry surveys. The costs are substantial: it not only slows down innovation but also keeps companies from adapting to new technologies as swiftly as they should. As technical debt accumulates, teams become frustrated, burnout escalates, and turnover rates rise—a vicious cycle that hurts companies and developers alike.

The repercussions can be serious. We’ve all seen the news stories about systems outages and failures that disrupt lives and damage reputations. Consider the 2021 FAA system outage, which grounded thousands of flights and created chaos for travelers—a result of years of technical debt piling up in critical infrastructure. When systems fail, it’s not the developers who face the worst consequences—it’s the businesses and the customers who depend on these services.

The AI Fallacy: Trusting AI to Handle Technical Debt

An increasing number of companies are rushing to integrate AI, convinced it will solve all their problems. In reality, laying off developers and offloading everything onto AI simply puts more pressure on remaining employees, who are expected to perform without the resources or support to handle mounting workloads. AI can assist in certain development tasks, but it can’t replace the critical decision-making, strategic thinking, or quality standards that skilled developers bring to their roles. Reducing the workforce with the assumption that AI will “take care of everything” only sets teams up for more challenges, eroding trust and leaving projects vulnerable to failure.

Real Solutions: Investing in Quality and Sustainable Development

To address the real threats of technical debt, companies must invest in creating sustainable development practices that go beyond quick fixes or automating code generation. Here are some key steps that could make a lasting difference:

1. Reevaluate Hiring Practices: Focus on testing for real-world scenarios that prioritize clean code, maintainability, and an understanding of technical debt over abstract problem-solving. Finding candidates who understand the long-term impact of their coding decisions can be invaluable.

2. Encourage Code Quality Through Testing: Mandate unit testing and code reviews to maintain a baseline level of quality. Developers given the time and tools to test effectively can create systems that are easier to work with and require less fixing over time.

3. Proper Management Structures: Assign project managers or scrum masters to support development teams and ensure workloads are manageable. Clear leadership allows junior developers to learn best practices and become better equipped to tackle complex issues.

4. Address Technical Debt as a Priority: Just like financial debt, technical debt should be tracked, assessed, and paid down in manageable increments. Ignoring it compounds issues, creating deeper problems that become harder to fix over time.

5. Educate Teams on the Limitations of AI: Developers and management alike should understand where AI can assist—and where it cannot. AI is a tool, not a silver bullet. Setting realistic expectations for its capabilities helps prevent costly errors and maintains employee trust.

Conclusion: Facing the Real Threat to Our Industry

The fear of AI replacing jobs is valid, but technical debt poses a more immediate threat to the industry. It impacts productivity, stifles innovation, and increases costs, ultimately creating an unsustainable work environment for developers. By investing in code quality, establishing proper management practices, and shifting focus from “just shipping” to sustainable practices, companies can reduce technical debt, boost job satisfaction, and position themselves for long-term success.

Embracing these changes means valuing developers for their expertise beyond code—acknowledging the judgment, creativity, and problem-solving skills that no AI can replace. We owe it to our teams, our companies, and our customers to address the very real challenges of technical debt, creating an industry that prioritizes lasting innovation over the fear of obsolescence.

FAQs

1. Why do companies continue to focus on DSA in hiring when AI can solve these problems?

Many companies use DSA tests as a legacy measure of problem-solving skills, but this approach overlooks the skills most valuable in real-world projects, like maintaining code quality, understanding technical debt, and writing maintainable code.

2. How does technical debt affect a company’s ability to innovate?

Technical debt slows down development as teams spend more time fixing issues than building new features. Over time, it can prevent companies from adopting new technologies, stifling innovation.

3. Can AI solve the problem of technical debt?

No, AI can’t solve technical debt. While AI may assist with code generation, technical debt requires human judgment, quality standards, and strategic decision-making that AI currently cannot replicate.

4. What impact does technical debt have on developers?

It leads to frustration, burnout, and reduced job satisfaction as developers spend significant time addressing old code issues rather than focusing on new development.

5. How can companies reduce technical debt?
By investing in sustainable coding practices, such as unit testing, regular code reviews, and proper project management. Creating a company culture that values code quality can also make a significant impact.

6. Is the fear of AI replacing developers justified?

While some fear is justified, AI lacks the creative and problem-solving skills necessary for true software engineering. Technical debt and poor management are far more immediate threats to developers’ roles.