It's "and" not "or" here. The new easy highly abstracted stuff doesn't prevent people from digging deeper, it's just one more potential entry point. There is n

It's "and" not "or" here. The new easy highly abstracted stuff doesn't prevent people from digging deeper, it's just one more potential entry point. There is nothing stopping anybody from digging into lower level languages now, in fact that is also easier than ever with open source IDEs, free compilers, fast processors, ubiquitous documentation, and helpful communities too. The mere existence of a totally open source operating system like Linux and its ability to function on commodity PCs and embedded devices is huge. You can argue (and I believe this is the point of the article) that people don't bother going deeper because for most computing purposes interacting with very high level abstractions of really complex systems is sufficient (and indeed becoming the norm), which leaves users at a loss when asked to grok lower levels of abstractions. It's also true that there is now more complexity and there are simply more possible things to learn, making it less likely that any individual has the time to develop deep knowledge of all of the systems they use. Those assertions may well be true, but I'd argue they are not the same thing as it being harder to learn anything in particular. It's daunting, maybe, because of the sheer possibility space, but all of the knowledge is out there and the tools are better than ever.