3 ms·
It seems to be me you are arguing against the very nature of complex systems, and the way we have built the entire computing stack for the last 80 years. Lower
by sailingparrot 5y ago
It seems to be me you are arguing against the very nature of complex systems, and the way we have built the entire computing stack for the last 80 years.
Lower level technologies need to be more flexible to allow usage in many different cases. On top of that we build different abstractions that are suitable for only a restricted number of uses cases, but that make them much simpler to think about and work with. By thinking at this higher level we are able to build much more complex logics than we would have before.
I certainly wouldn't want to be stuck in a world where we still have to do everything in assembly because we were too afraid to embrace the compiler.
- skohan 5y agoI'm not against abstraction in principal, but in my opinion it should be intentional and measured. Progress isn't only about building and endlessly taller stack of abstractions such that we eventually can't see the computer underneath. Sometimes it's about looking at the stack we have, and building a smaller and smarter one based on the lessons we learned along the way.