> Someday, knowledge of the actual functioning of these systems might become so obscure so as to, basically, be lost - kind of like (in a way) the Apolo project

> Someday, knowledge of the actual functioning of these systems might become so obscure so as to, basically, be lost - kind of like (in a way) the Apolo project know-how is fading away ... We're already way past this point since the 70s. Do you read the official specifications for every hardware platform your software runs on? Do you even have access to and a deep understanding of the inner workings of your target OS? Do you know the intricacies and quirks of all the network-, display-, and input protocols used in your devices? Are you deeply familiar with every audio and video codec, encryption method, online data stream compression scheme? Point is, none of that matters depending on your actual software. A sculptor doesn't need to be an expert in chemistry, mechanical engineering, and mining to create a beautiful stone statue after all. Intimate knowledge of the hardware is required if you build drivers, firmware, low-level embedded software, and critical systems (e.g. ABS, flight control systems, etc.) but not for building word processors, interactive websites, business apps, data entry systems, content creation tools and all the things users interact with on a daily basis on their PCs. It'd be way too much for a single human being to know and understand in depth and unnecessary (as in not helping with getting the job done). Why is it that everyone understands and accepts and is comfortable with the fact that scientists and medical doctors for example, have their specialist fields and aren't familiar with the full spectrum of their respective jobs, while people expect software developers to be deeply familiar with 100+ years of cumulative knowledge and developments in hardware and software?