How to overcome technical debt in frontend development

Everyone working in the IT industry has seen or at least heard of technical debt. The term “tech debt” accurately describes what it is  – the cost of additional work required to bring the current implementation up to the project’s standards. And technical debt in frontend development is nothing different and has become a critical concern.

Tech debt – why does it exist in projects?

Similar to monetary debt, tech debt tends to accumulate and become more costly over time. It may seem that if project development is handled properly, tech debt should never appear. However, some of its causes are external and independent of the development team.

Now, lets take a look at the common sources of tech debt.

Hotfixes

When a production error is detected, it is usually expected that the fix should be deployed with the highest priority and in the shortest time possible. This often forces developers to sacrifice code quality to meet those demands.

Deadlines

When a deadline is tight or unexpectedly moved to an earsslier date, developers may have to compromise on code quality, similar to how hotfixes are handled.

Human errors

Developers sometimes make mistakes they don’t notice or unintentionally create new logic in the project without realizing a similar feature already exists.

Tech stack changes

Libraries, frameworks, and plugins are periodically updated. If the project depends on them, refactoring may be required to meet the new standards. Additionally, there are times when the development team discovers a new approach or technology that can improve the project’s efficiency but doesn’t allocate time to refactor older features accordingly.

Risks associated with technical debt

Tech debt comes with many risks, which will sooner or later impact the time spent developing each new feature in the project.

Improperly prepared functionalities may work correctly at first, but when attempting to extend or reuse them, unexpected and difficult-to-debug errors may arise. The easier and faster solution is often to create new logic for the task, which leads to a situation where two different parts of the project handle very similar logic. This diversifies the tech stack, making it harder for new team members to join and start contributing comfortably.

Over time, if neglected, older features may even turn into the infamous “legacy code.” This increases onboarding costs and may result in the emergence of a “legacy maintainer” – a developer whose sole job is to prevent further problems caused by outdated code. Consequently, the team becomes less efficient, as one member is fully occupied with maintenance instead of contributing to new features… and so on.

This is just one of many potential “snowball effect” scenarios, where the longer tech debt is ignored, the bigger it becomes. However, all these scenarios can be summed up in three key conclusions:

• Tech debt naturally grows over time.
• Tech debt reduces developers’ efficiency, which makes the project more costly.
• Tech debt makes it harder for new people to smoothly join the project.

Technical debt in frontend development

In frontend development, tech debt can appear in any of the languages used – HTML, CSS, or JavaScript. Every modern framework provides a solution for preparing frontend components. Such components should be designed to be reusable and capable of adapting to the data provided to them, reducing the need for code duplication in the project.

Tech debt in this context often results from multiple components being created when they could easily be merged into a single, universal one. Less common is the opposite scenario, where only one component is prepared but overloaded with unrelated functionalities that lack synergy.

Common examples of technical debt in frontend development

Hard-coding

Hard-coding is a frequent cause of tech debt, as it prevents code from being reusable. Examples include:

• Static text that should be dynamic or translatable,
• Inline CSS rules that bypass existing mixins or variables,
• Scripts containing logic that works only under specific conditions instead of being adaptable.

Outdated patterns, libraries and dependencies

Frameworks and libraries frequently deprecate certain features over time. Delaying updates until the last moment can result in rushed package upgrades or even force the team to postpone all dependency updates, further increasing tech debt. Libraries like Bootstrap, Tailwind, or custom UI kits may evolve over time and cause problems if:

• Old CSS utility classes are mixed with new ones, creating inconsistency,
• Deprecated components are still used, requiring urgent updates later,
• Custom components are developed instead of utilizing existing solutions from the framework,

Poor component structure

Issues include:

• Monolithic components that handle too many responsibilities, making them hard to test and maintain,
• Improper data handling – for example, passing excessive data to child components instead of using scoped slots or context providers.

Inconsistent naming conventions & folder structure

• A mix of kebab-case, camelCase, and PascalCase in filenames or class names can lead to confusion and bugs, especially in larger projects.
• Inconsistent class, folder, and file naming conventions reduce readability and may force new developers to waste time trying to identify a non-existent pattern.

Solutions to manage technical debt (in frontend development)

  There are two main actions developers can take to reduce the risk of tech debt:

Prepare the project in a way that minimizes the chance of issues arising

• Maintain a clear project structure – use consistent folder structures for components, utilities, and services which follow established naming conventions. Separate concerns by grouping logic, styles, and templates appropriately.
• Use tools like ESLint, Prettier, or Stylelint to maintain code consistency and follow framework best practices.
• Consider using TypeScript in order to ensure type safety.
• Create reusable components with the focus on them being flexible and data-driven.
• Use utility-first frameworks or follow scalable patterns like BEM.
• Avoid inline styles and prioritize reusable class structures.
• Write unit tests, integration tests, and end-to-end tests to detect problems early.
• Configure CI/CD pipeline to reject builds with critical issues.
• Document every new feature. It can be done in a shared workspace or by using a tool like Storybook. 

Organize the workflow to quickly detect tech debt and address it before it grows out of control

• Require code review approval for a pull request to be merged, ensuring quality and catching potential tech debt early.
• Establish a tech debt log – create a dedicated section in your task manager (e.g., Jira, GitHub Issues) where tech debt tasks are listed and tracked.
• Schedule dedicated refactoring sessions to address tech debt.
• Conduct regular team meetings where developers can discuss tech debt concerns.
• When production issues occur, organize a post-mortem to analyze the root cause.

Summary

In conclusion, managing tech debt is an ongoing process that requires proactive planning and constant vigilance. By adopting practices such as enforcing code reviews, tracking tech debt in a dedicated log, and scheduling regular refactoring sessions, teams can prevent debt from piling up.

Additionally, fostering open communication within the team and setting up automated pipelines for early detection of issues ensures that tech debt is addressed before it becomes unmanageable.

A well-organized workflow not only reduces technical debt but also enhances the overall efficiency of the development process, ultimately leading to higher-quality software and a smoother project lifecycle.