4 ms·

I’d hesitate to call the good abstractions you describe indirection. The term is most appropriate when describing opaque abstractions that force you into their

I’d hesitate to call the good abstractions you describe indirection. The term is most appropriate when describing opaque abstractions that force you into their inner workings in order to understand their purpose. In the original example, what exactly it means to be “foo like” is not obvious. You need to bounce into the other file/method in order to understand it’s purpose. In good abstractions, like the ones you describe, you can read the method and understand it’s intended purpose as is. In fact, a good abstraction will be easier to understand than inlining all it’s details. This is a semantic point, but I don’t think there really is such a thing as good indirection. Indirection is the result of bad abstractions. The author is basically just saying “don’t make bad abstractions”.

sbov 7y ago
It doesn't matter how good your abstraction is, if someone needs to know the details it is at that point indirection. And there will always be some cases where someone needs to know the details. The better your abstraction, the less often. But someone, sometime, will still need to look at them.
- didericis 7y ago
  True, there will always be people who need to know the details. That applies all the way down to CPU opcodes. I’m making more of a semantic point than anything else. If you define indirection as anything which causes you to jump from the code directly in front of you at any point, then yes, you can call even good abstractions indirection. I’d argue that such a definition makes the word “indirection” must less useful, as it becomes pretty much synonymous with “abstraction”. I think it’s better to reserve the word “indirection” to describe abstractions that require you to look elsewhere to understand what the abstraction actually is.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

sbov 7y ago

It doesn't matter how good your abstraction is, if someone needs to know the details it is at that point indirection. And there will always be some cases where someone needs to know the details. The better your abstraction, the less often. But someone, sometime, will still need to look at them.

didericis 7y ago
True, there will always be people who need to know the details. That applies all the way down to CPU opcodes. I’m making more of a semantic point than anything else. If you define indirection as anything which causes you to jump from the code directly in front of you at any point, then yes, you can call even good abstractions indirection. I’d argue that such a definition makes the word “indirection” must less useful, as it becomes pretty much synonymous with “abstraction”. I think it’s better to reserve the word “indirection” to describe abstractions that require you to look elsewhere to understand what the abstraction actually is.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]