4 ms·

Hmm isn’t this the old unix idea of “layers” where each layer is built so that its as close to non-leaky as possible, thus allowing you to never need to investi

by seer 3y ago

Hmm isn’t this the old unix idea of “layers” where each layer is built so that its as close to non-leaky as possible, thus allowing you to never need to investigate the layers below the one you are working with. I think I learned this in school in like year 2000. And I’ve strived to do that in software ever since - whatever I build - build the abstraction that makes solving the problem easy and then solve the problem with it. That way when the inevitable change request comes, you don’t need to dive down the layers, just utilize the current tools. And people gush when that happens throwing terms like 10x developers, ninjas etc. Its just consistently investing time to build those layers and then utilize them.

lupire 3y ago
Back when Paul Graham was a cool programmer, he wrote in On Lisp, that the first step to creating a program is to use Lisp to create a language to write the program in.
stouset 3y ago
Right now it’s in vogue to criticize abstraction. Bur every single advance we’ve had in software engineering is thanks to abstraction. The issue isn’t that abstraction is bad, it’s that bad abstractions are bad. Finding good ones is hard, and people have begun to assume it’s impossible (or at least not worth the effort). IMO this is a symptom of the exponential growth in our field. Experienced engineers who know how to do this well are outnumbered by well-meaning novices who output ten times as many LOC with half the value. In my mind we shouldn’t be avoiding abstraction, we should be learning what makes one good and learning to emulate that.
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  Doug McIlroy once said something to the effect that the wonderful thing about his team was that he'd come into the lunch room, and instead of talking about new features requiring adding a bunch of code, they'd be talking about new abstractions allowing them to delete a bunch of code.

by seer 3y ago

lupire 3y ago

Back when Paul Graham was a cool programmer, he wrote in On Lisp, that the first step to creating a program is to use Lisp to create a language to write the program in.

stouset 3y ago

Right now it’s in vogue to criticize abstraction. Bur every single advance we’ve had in software engineering is thanks to abstraction. The issue isn’t that abstraction is bad, it’s that bad abstractions are bad. Finding good ones is hard, and people have begun to assume it’s impossible (or at least not worth the effort). IMO this is a symptom of the exponential growth in our field. Experienced engineers who know how to do this well are outnumbered by well-meaning novices who output ten times as many LOC with half the value. In my mind we shouldn’t be avoiding abstraction, we should be learning what makes one good and learning to emulate that.

082349872349872 3y ago
Doug McIlroy once said something to the effect that the wonderful thing about his team was that he'd come into the lunch room, and instead of talking about new features requiring adding a bunch of code, they'd be talking about new abstractions allowing them to delete a bunch of code.