4 ms·
I disagree and believe "abstraction" is the correct term for wgat the author intended. > Computer science commonly presents levels (or, less commonly, layers)
by otteromkram 3y ago
I disagree and believe "abstraction" is the correct term for wgat the author intended.
> Computer science commonly presents levels (or, less commonly, layers) of abstraction, wherein each level represents a different model of the same information and processes, but with varying amounts of detail.
See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_(computer_science)#Levels_of_abstraction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_(computer_scienc...
- ahoka 3y agoI think it’s very common for developers to mistake indirection for abstraction.
- okaleniuk 3y agoI don't challenge the author's use of the word "abstraction", I challenge the validity of the very word "abstraction" in the context of computer science. What we're dealing here is not abstraction, it is something else. But thinking of is as of abstraction brings us to the state of affairs the author criticises. If you remember that there is very specific very concrete automation behind every abstraction, you don't stack them up until the pile becomes impossible to either control or understand.