4 ms·

Cant we make this argument for any level of abstraction? A lot of people start out with shells and end up being unable to understand how to construct a switch

Cant we make this argument for any level of abstraction? A lot of people start out with shells and end up being unable to understand how to construct a switch or adder in logic gates. A shell is a great tool but shouldn't be a crutch.

spijdar 6y ago
Emotionally, I actually agree with this. I'd love for at least a basic understanding of computers down to boolean logic and the very basics of semiconductors up to the OS level and beyond to be "widely known" by programmers and "computer literate". At the same time, I know that's extremely unreasonable to expect. I guess for the shell and editor, you can argue you ought to understand it stripped of abstractions, since it's actually the level you're working at, while most people don't work at the logic gate level.
- Shared404 6y ago
  You may like "The Secret Life of Programs" by Jonathan Steinhart. It starts at boolean logic and works up to a web browser and then some other stuff. Edit: It's a high level covering of each topic of course, it does have to fit in a book. It's ~444 pages.
- didericis 6y ago
  Another book recommendation: "Elements of Computing Systems" by Noam Nisan and Shimon Schocken. It doesn't go all the way down to the physics of semiconductors, but it goes down to logic gates and all the way up to tetris (there's a related course/website called nand to tetris: https://www.nand2tetris.org/ https://www.nand2tetris.org/) If you want to go further down, check out Jeri Ellsworth's old videos where she built a transistor at home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_znRopGtbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_znRopGtbE
- wott 6y ago
  > At the same time, I know that's extremely unreasonable to expect. However, that's exactly the path every Electrical & Electronics Engineer classically took.
  - __turbobrew__ 6y ago
    Yea, this was basically my computer engineering curriculum. Start at solid state physics, build a transistor, boolean logic, digital circuit design, cpu design, operating systems and device drivers, and then software engineering. Most people in my class ended up at the top of the stack (operating systems and software engineering) since the jobs are more numerous and the pay is better.
- sroussey 6y ago
  As an EE and compsci major, I loved knowing how to form a transistor with n and p types, how to form NAND gates, how to deal with clocks and timing (ok, that’s a lie), how to make vhdl turn into fab rules, how cpu and system design influence compilers, how to write a compiler, various programming languages, np completeness (ok, eh), program design, architecture, distributed systems, machine learning (getting there). The usefulness of knowing the whole stack has diminishing returns though. It can be helpful in a large company where I can make connections that others can’t, but in a small company it’s less relevant unless I were solely focused on one specific connection (say, how machine learning using math as designed in an ALU inside a CPU or GPU is ludicrous—go analog and get four orders of magnitude speed up, all that time waiting for carry bit propagation, yuck!) Your time is probably better spent learning to be a good generalist or specialist in your field, rather than knowing inside so many layers of abstraction.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Emotionally, I actually agree with this. I'd love for at least a basic understanding of computers down to boolean logic and the very basics of semiconductors up to the OS level and beyond to be "widely known" by programmers and "computer literate". cf. https://www.pbs.org/show/crash-course-computer-science/ https://www.pbs.org/show/crash-course-computer-science/ No, it won't give you the level of understanding that an actual comp sci/engineering degree will (after all, it's just a couple dozen ~10 minute videos), but it does touch on all the major concepts and through the series builds on concepts presented earlier.
turbinerneiter 6y ago
Absolutely true! Ordered an FPGA dev kit last week for this reason. Perfect world, you know everything. In reality, you can't and don't need to. Knowing some shell stuff will be useful for most if not all programmers.
- andi999 6y ago
  You know nothing..the vhdl to lut transformation (and the content of the bitfile) are totally locked trade secrets.
  - turbinerneiter 6y ago
    I got the QuickLogic dev kit - it uses the fully open source Symbiflow toolchain. I think my chances of ever understanding what Symbiflow does are quite small, but that is a shortcoming on my side :D And even if I do, I have to learn semiconductor fabrication next!
pessimizer 6y ago
> Cant we make this argument for any level of abstraction? We could also make the opposite argument for any level of abstraction: can you really say that someone who buys apps for their iPhone and runs them is less of a programmer than someone who actually programs? If programming is just getting a job done, and being a good programmer is just picking the right tool to get the job done... The real question is pragmatic, not theoretical. Does your dependence on a tool sometimes make easy things impossible or encourage misunderstandings about lower level processes that lead to bugs or inefficiencies? Is it simply too big or expensive to run in all of the places you might want to program? Does the tool make up for that lack of flexibility with increased productivity? Those are real questions that you can ask about any specific tool (including the shell.) It doesn't mean anything to ask them about tools in general, and the idea that sacrifices and benefits must all come out even in the end is just the law of averages.

spijdar 6y ago

Emotionally, I actually agree with this. I'd love for at least a basic understanding of computers down to boolean logic and the very basics of semiconductors up to the OS level and beyond to be "widely known" by programmers and "computer literate". At the same time, I know that's extremely unreasonable to expect. I guess for the shell and editor, you can argue you ought to understand it stripped of abstractions, since it's actually the level you're working at, while most people don't work at the logic gate level.

Shared404 6y ago
You may like "The Secret Life of Programs" by Jonathan Steinhart. It starts at boolean logic and works up to a web browser and then some other stuff. Edit: It's a high level covering of each topic of course, it does have to fit in a book. It's ~444 pages.
didericis 6y ago
Another book recommendation: "Elements of Computing Systems" by Noam Nisan and Shimon Schocken. It doesn't go all the way down to the physics of semiconductors, but it goes down to logic gates and all the way up to tetris (there's a related course/website called nand to tetris: https://www.nand2tetris.org/ https://www.nand2tetris.org/) If you want to go further down, check out Jeri Ellsworth's old videos where she built a transistor at home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_znRopGtbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_znRopGtbE
wott 6y ago
> At the same time, I know that's extremely unreasonable to expect. However, that's exactly the path every Electrical & Electronics Engineer classically took.
- __turbobrew__ 6y ago
  Yea, this was basically my computer engineering curriculum. Start at solid state physics, build a transistor, boolean logic, digital circuit design, cpu design, operating systems and device drivers, and then software engineering. Most people in my class ended up at the top of the stack (operating systems and software engineering) since the jobs are more numerous and the pay is better.
sroussey 6y ago
As an EE and compsci major, I loved knowing how to form a transistor with n and p types, how to form NAND gates, how to deal with clocks and timing (ok, that’s a lie), how to make vhdl turn into fab rules, how cpu and system design influence compilers, how to write a compiler, various programming languages, np completeness (ok, eh), program design, architecture, distributed systems, machine learning (getting there). The usefulness of knowing the whole stack has diminishing returns though. It can be helpful in a large company where I can make connections that others can’t, but in a small company it’s less relevant unless I were solely focused on one specific connection (say, how machine learning using math as designed in an ALU inside a CPU or GPU is ludicrous—go analog and get four orders of magnitude speed up, all that time waiting for carry bit propagation, yuck!) Your time is probably better spent learning to be a good generalist or specialist in your field, rather than knowing inside so many layers of abstraction.
nobody9999 6y ago
>Emotionally, I actually agree with this. I'd love for at least a basic understanding of computers down to boolean logic and the very basics of semiconductors up to the OS level and beyond to be "widely known" by programmers and "computer literate". cf. https://www.pbs.org/show/crash-course-computer-science/ https://www.pbs.org/show/crash-course-computer-science/ No, it won't give you the level of understanding that an actual comp sci/engineering degree will (after all, it's just a couple dozen ~10 minute videos), but it does touch on all the major concepts and through the series builds on concepts presented earlier.

turbinerneiter 6y ago

Absolutely true! Ordered an FPGA dev kit last week for this reason. Perfect world, you know everything. In reality, you can't and don't need to. Knowing some shell stuff will be useful for most if not all programmers.

andi999 6y ago
You know nothing..the vhdl to lut transformation (and the content of the bitfile) are totally locked trade secrets.
- turbinerneiter 6y ago
  I got the QuickLogic dev kit - it uses the fully open source Symbiflow toolchain. I think my chances of ever understanding what Symbiflow does are quite small, but that is a shortcoming on my side :D And even if I do, I have to learn semiconductor fabrication next!

pessimizer 6y ago

> Cant we make this argument for any level of abstraction? We could also make the opposite argument for any level of abstraction: can you really say that someone who buys apps for their iPhone and runs them is less of a programmer than someone who actually programs? If programming is just getting a job done, and being a good programmer is just picking the right tool to get the job done... The real question is pragmatic, not theoretical. Does your dependence on a tool sometimes make easy things impossible or encourage misunderstandings about lower level processes that lead to bugs or inefficiencies? Is it simply too big or expensive to run in all of the places you might want to program? Does the tool make up for that lack of flexibility with increased productivity? Those are real questions that you can ask about any specific tool (including the shell.) It doesn't mean anything to ask them about tools in general, and the idea that sacrifices and benefits must all come out even in the end is just the law of averages.