3 ms·

Exactly right, but over the past six years there's been a strong (and accelerating) trend among developers of "lalala we don't want to know how anything works!

by seiji 11y ago

Exactly right, but over the past six years there's been a strong (and accelerating) trend among developers of "lalala we don't want to know how anything works! give us an API and go away." Most developers I've seen reject even learning about networks or DNS or operating systems or databases. Such willful ignorance boggles the mind, but they are praised because their goals are shipping half-broken things as rapidly as possible to flip upwards for those oh-so-tasty acquihire payouts. We even saw this week how overconsumption of convenience APIs can put entire companies in danger when those privately controlled convenience APIs just decide to shut down one day. Convenience of immediacy always seems to trump connivence of long term stability.

nemothekid 11y ago
>Exactly right, but over the past six years there's been a strong (and accelerating) trend among developers of "lalala we don't want to know how anything works! give us an API and go away." I will argue that this trend has always existed. I'm sure you can find an x86/68k/z80 developer complaining that developers are going "lalala we don't want to know how anything works! give us an the C-language and go away."* I'm sure there are developers who couldn't imagine learning C without learning x86, and saw developers learning C without learning x86 as "willful ignorance". Good abstractions will cause developers to simply gloss over how they work.
- simula67 11y ago
  As programmers, we need to know atleast one level below the abstractions to which we are programming to. For example, if you program in C you need to know a little bit of assembly, how objects are laid out in memory etc. This is how you write fast code and it helps with debugging too. But if you are programming in C and notices that something goes wrong with the hardware, ( for example, an instruction does not do something that it is supposed to do ) you will have to ask for help since it is someone else's work that is faulty. Sounds reasonable ?
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    At least one level below. Hmm. That sounds more reasonable than full understanding. See my reply to nemo, though, for an alternative that I think is more reasonable. Basically, heuristics and simplified models.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  The good reverend Laphroaig preaches: If the 0day in your familiar pastures dwindles, despair not! Rather, bestir yourself to where programmers are led astray from the sacred Assembly, neither understanding what their programming languages compile to, nor asking to see how their data is stored or transmitted in the true bits of the wire. For those who follow their computation through the layers shall gain 0day and pwn, and those who say “we trust in our APIs, in our proofs, and in our memory models and need not burden ourselves with confusing engineering detail that has no scientific value anyhow” shall surely provide an abundance of 0day and pwnage sufficient for all of us.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    An assembler elitist with a semi-fallacious argument. Let's rewrite that in view of a lower-level elitist to show it still looks true, shows love for assembler as foolish pride, and still fails to matter in face of good, high-level tools. If the 0day in your familiar pastures dwindles, despair not! Rather, bestir yourself to where programmers are led astray from the sacred RTL/Transistor language, neither understanding what their assembly languages and microprograms compile to, nor asking to see how their data is stored or transmitted in the true bits of the CPU's network-on-a-chip and memory plus analog values and circuitry many run through at interfaces. For those who follow their computation through the layers shall gain 0day and pwn, and those who say “we trust in our assemblers, our C compilers, our APIs, in our proofs, and in our memory models and ISA models and need not burden ourselves with confusing engineering detail that has no scientific value anyhow” shall surely provide an abundance of 0day and pwnage sufficient for all of us. Source: LISP, Forth, and Oberon communities who did hardware to microcode to language & OS all integrated & consistent. :P
    - semi-extrinsic 11y ago
      I surmise the good reverend elevates Assembly not because it is fundamental, but because it is a level deeper than the domain of coders who yield unto us exploitable codes. Verily, I demand of ye, produceth thou the exploit of an Assembly 0day that was wrought from Transistor language!
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Or work safely, effectively, and productively when taught how to properly use the abstractions. They can optionally be taught how they work underneath for better results. Yet, I don't have to teach people caches to tell them to group variables closely for performance. I likewise can give very basic explanations of stacks and heaps plus heuristics for using them. People still get the job done. Functional programming proves my point even more where they don't know how the hardware functions or even use the same model. Yet, with good compiler and language design, they can make robust, fast, and recently parallel programs staying totally within their model. Most problems we pick up outside the abstraction gaps can be fixed in the tooling or with interface checks. So, I think the common perception of people doing crap code while working within an abstraction is unjustified and even disproven by good practices in that area. Much like I would be unjustified in accusing assembly coders of being "willfully ignorant" or working within foolish abstractions because they didn't know underlying microprogramming or RTL. They don't need it: just knowledge of how to effectively use the assembly. Actually, I saw one commenting so let me go try that real quickly. :)
- seiji 11y ago
  couldn't imagine learning C without learning x86 One difference: C->x86 is a static translation layer. Other network/system things dynamically change out from under your "designed" system and alter threat/security/disaster/reliability/consistency models in a potentially unpredictable combinational fashion. Saying "cloud abstraction" or "I trust this API and don't care how it works" is basically committing every https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_distributed_computing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_distributed_compu... and just saying "X can't break because we use provider Y who guarantees they can violate the laws of physics for us!"
wesleyfsmith 11y ago
Isn't this the nature of abstraction though? As the high level tools get increasingly powerful at solving common problems people will invest less in learning their underlying implementations. I'm sure all the assembly programmers were complaining that the C programmers had no respect for "how anything works".

by seiji 11y ago

nemothekid 11y ago

>Exactly right, but over the past six years there's been a strong (and accelerating) trend among developers of "lalala we don't want to know how anything works! give us an API and go away." I will argue that this trend has always existed. I'm sure you can find an x86/68k/z80 developer complaining that developers are going "lalala we don't want to know how anything works! give us an the C-language and go away."* I'm sure there are developers who couldn't imagine learning C without learning x86, and saw developers learning C without learning x86 as "willful ignorance". Good abstractions will cause developers to simply gloss over how they work.

simula67 11y ago
As programmers, we need to know atleast one level below the abstractions to which we are programming to. For example, if you program in C you need to know a little bit of assembly, how objects are laid out in memory etc. This is how you write fast code and it helps with debugging too. But if you are programming in C and notices that something goes wrong with the hardware, ( for example, an instruction does not do something that it is supposed to do ) you will have to ask for help since it is someone else's work that is faulty. Sounds reasonable ?
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  At least one level below. Hmm. That sounds more reasonable than full understanding. See my reply to nemo, though, for an alternative that I think is more reasonable. Basically, heuristics and simplified models.
semi-extrinsic 11y ago
The good reverend Laphroaig preaches: If the 0day in your familiar pastures dwindles, despair not! Rather, bestir yourself to where programmers are led astray from the sacred Assembly, neither understanding what their programming languages compile to, nor asking to see how their data is stored or transmitted in the true bits of the wire. For those who follow their computation through the layers shall gain 0day and pwn, and those who say “we trust in our APIs, in our proofs, and in our memory models and need not burden ourselves with confusing engineering detail that has no scientific value anyhow” shall surely provide an abundance of 0day and pwnage sufficient for all of us.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  An assembler elitist with a semi-fallacious argument. Let's rewrite that in view of a lower-level elitist to show it still looks true, shows love for assembler as foolish pride, and still fails to matter in face of good, high-level tools. If the 0day in your familiar pastures dwindles, despair not! Rather, bestir yourself to where programmers are led astray from the sacred RTL/Transistor language, neither understanding what their assembly languages and microprograms compile to, nor asking to see how their data is stored or transmitted in the true bits of the CPU's network-on-a-chip and memory plus analog values and circuitry many run through at interfaces. For those who follow their computation through the layers shall gain 0day and pwn, and those who say “we trust in our assemblers, our C compilers, our APIs, in our proofs, and in our memory models and ISA models and need not burden ourselves with confusing engineering detail that has no scientific value anyhow” shall surely provide an abundance of 0day and pwnage sufficient for all of us. Source: LISP, Forth, and Oberon communities who did hardware to microcode to language & OS all integrated & consistent. :P
  - semi-extrinsic 11y ago
    I surmise the good reverend elevates Assembly not because it is fundamental, but because it is a level deeper than the domain of coders who yield unto us exploitable codes. Verily, I demand of ye, produceth thou the exploit of an Assembly 0day that was wrought from Transistor language!
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Or work safely, effectively, and productively when taught how to properly use the abstractions. They can optionally be taught how they work underneath for better results. Yet, I don't have to teach people caches to tell them to group variables closely for performance. I likewise can give very basic explanations of stacks and heaps plus heuristics for using them. People still get the job done. Functional programming proves my point even more where they don't know how the hardware functions or even use the same model. Yet, with good compiler and language design, they can make robust, fast, and recently parallel programs staying totally within their model. Most problems we pick up outside the abstraction gaps can be fixed in the tooling or with interface checks. So, I think the common perception of people doing crap code while working within an abstraction is unjustified and even disproven by good practices in that area. Much like I would be unjustified in accusing assembly coders of being "willfully ignorant" or working within foolish abstractions because they didn't know underlying microprogramming or RTL. They don't need it: just knowledge of how to effectively use the assembly. Actually, I saw one commenting so let me go try that real quickly. :)
seiji 11y ago
couldn't imagine learning C without learning x86 One difference: C->x86 is a static translation layer. Other network/system things dynamically change out from under your "designed" system and alter threat/security/disaster/reliability/consistency models in a potentially unpredictable combinational fashion. Saying "cloud abstraction" or "I trust this API and don't care how it works" is basically committing every https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_distributed_computing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_distributed_compu... and just saying "X can't break because we use provider Y who guarantees they can violate the laws of physics for us!"

wesleyfsmith 11y ago

Isn't this the nature of abstraction though? As the high level tools get increasingly powerful at solving common problems people will invest less in learning their underlying implementations. I'm sure all the assembly programmers were complaining that the C programmers had no respect for "how anything works".