OP was me annoyingly quoting myself, and here's my refutation annoyingly quoting OP: "Software libraries suck. Here's why, in a sentence: they promise to be ab

OP was me annoyingly quoting myself, and here's my refutation annoyingly quoting OP: "Software libraries suck. Here's why, in a sentence: they promise to be abstractions, but they end up becoming services. An abstraction frees you from thinking about its internals every time you use it. A service allows you to never learn its internals." "Confusingly, I've been calling Iverson's notion of subordination of detail 'abstraction', and Iverson's notion of abstraction 'service' or 'division of labor'. Though lately I try to avoid the term "abstraction" entirely. That seems on the right track. Regardless of terminology, this is a critical distinction." As I hope these clarify, I have nothing against true abstractions as you describe them.