I agree with you, but wonder if the following is the case: Consider the layers of software abstraction counting upwards from 0 (the machine code) to n (whateve

I agree with you, but wonder if the following is the case: Consider the layers of software abstraction counting upwards from 0 (the machine code) to n (whatever we’re working with now). As we add more layers on top, layer zero becomes more and more irrelevant. However, that doesn’t mean that n-1, n-2, n-3 and so on are irrelevant. If our languages and tools are leaky abstractions, what we need is some kind of uniform depth, and the problem with JavaSchools is that they teach a very thin approach to programming. It’s true that with new languages and tools and so on the specific layers Joel is talking in about become irrelevant, but we could write this post today about JavaScript programmers who don’t understand the fundamentals about the Java object model or Ruby programmers who don’t grok how Modules or Lambdas really work because they’ve been spoon-fed Rails. A Ruby programmer may not need layers 0, 1, or 2 but I bet he does need R (Rails), as well as R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 whatever they may be.