4 ms·
> The one thing software doesn't need is more layers between what a person thinks the code does and what it actually does. I get what you’re saying, but also c
by mrexroad 4y ago
> The one thing software doesn't need is more layers between what a person thinks the code does and what it actually does.
I get what you’re saying, but also can’t help but think how glad I am to not write assembly anymore. It’s abstractions all the way down anyway. If adding more layers can lower the barrier to code, the I’m all for it — and yes, including all the baggage it’ll bring along. It’ll suck for a while, but it’ll eventually empower a newer generation to do things they otherwise couldn’t have.
- bmitc 4y agoIt's not necessarily the layers of abstraction. I would consider this to be a layer of indirection. A human writing code, then a machine learning algorithm learning from other human written code, and then another human using that machine learning algorithm to understand the original code seems like a rather needless and inefficient layer of indirection.