3 ms·
A lot of it, I think, isn’t trying to design for the lowest common denominator, but trying to find abstractions that fit problems more accurately. When that wor
by wwright 8y ago
A lot of it, I think, isn’t trying to design for the lowest common denominator, but trying to find abstractions that fit problems more accurately. When that works well, you end up with much higher accessibility and fewer errors.
As with all abstractions, though, they tend to leak. Software design tries to minimize those leaks, but they have to prioritize which ones to fix.
Advanced users like you or me don’t need those abstractions nearly as much, so we’re not prioritized. Which is probably fine. We end up seeing the leaks in the abstractions a lot more because of it, though.
- ColanR 8y ago> As with all abstractions, though, they tend to leak. That's part of the problem, though, and not something that should be brushed aside. The old designs were good partly because they operated one abstraction level lower, where the leaks were inherently much smaller.
- TuringTest 8y agoYes, but that lower abstraction level also meant that much less people was able to use those systems.