More code means more opportunities for things to go wrong, but I wouldn't go quite as far as saying that all code is tech debt, even though it makes for a good blog post title. Looking at all code in such a pessimistic light doesn't actually seem that useful. It might be one thing if there were adequate measures for "good code", but those hardly exist, or are dwarfed by inadequate measures that are entirely opinion-based. Less code than more might be as good as it gets, but I would rephrase the author's "To avoid technical debt, don’t write code" as "To avoid technical debt, write less code" (though perhaps "fewer codes" may be more grammatically accurate). Code is not bad, and tech debt isn't necessarily bad either. We code to accomplish things, and as much as I despise shitty codebases, even companies with a lot of tech debt often provide a lot of value to both customers and employees. In fact, I would say that tech debt in and of itself is no more a problem than monetary debt in real life, except when it's not being paid off and is collecting interest. We could not only write less code but actually pay off our tech debts, yet the structure of incentives and most companies hardly facilitates that.