4 ms·

Until maybe 15-ish years ago, it was common for programmers to “bottom out” on the machine code level. In other words, they came to roughly understand the whole

by layer8 2y ago

Until maybe 15-ish years ago, it was common for programmers to “bottom out” on the machine code level. In other words, they came to roughly understand the whole software stack in principle down to the software-hardware interface (the CPU executing machine code). The topic of this thread is that this has (allegedly) changed, developers at large don’t go down in their understanding until they hit hardware anymore. Okay, you might argue that in earlier decades programmers also tended to have an understanding of hardware circuit design and how a CPU and memory etc. works in terms of logical gates and clocks. But arguably there is a harder abstraction boundary between hardware and software than at any given software-software abstraction boundary.

15155 2y ago
> it was common for programmers to “bottom out” on the machine code level. It's still this way in embedded development to some large degree.
simpaticoder 2y ago
>Until maybe 15-ish years ago, it was common for programmers to “bottom out” on the machine code level. That was more true 30 years ago, in the age of relatively simple micro-architectures in the (relatively short) era of the disconnected personal computer. But there are several directions to "bottom out". For example going in the direction of the network, you might dig into the details of ethernet, wifi, and UDP/TCP/IP. You can even go in the direction of electronics, and understand how to de/solder components, design and fabricate PCB's, or in the direction of enclosures and mechanisms. You can go in the direction of understanding the market itself, and all the CPU/GPU/motherboard/PCI/m2/SATA/chipset combinations and how they work together. You might go in the direction of understanding systems programming and the kernel, ttys, and file descriptors, or in the direction of cryptography, etc. Complexity is a sign of a healthy ecosystem, and we see this repeated again and again in every area of human endeavor that continues unabated for any length of time. A field starts small and understandable by one person, but quickly continues to grow until it cannot reasonably be understood by any one person. Chemistry, math, engineering, physics are like this. Is it reasonable to lament this fact and consider modern practitioners any less than earlier ones for their lack of total knowledge of it?
StuffMaster 2y ago
>Okay, you might argue that in earlier decades programmers also tended to have an understanding of hardware circuit design and how a CPU and memory etc. works in terms of logical gates and clocks My degree included this and I'm very glad it did.

by layer8 2y ago

15155 2y ago

> it was common for programmers to “bottom out” on the machine code level. It's still this way in embedded development to some large degree.

simpaticoder 2y ago

>Until maybe 15-ish years ago, it was common for programmers to “bottom out” on the machine code level. That was more true 30 years ago, in the age of relatively simple micro-architectures in the (relatively short) era of the disconnected personal computer. But there are several directions to "bottom out". For example going in the direction of the network, you might dig into the details of ethernet, wifi, and UDP/TCP/IP. You can even go in the direction of electronics, and understand how to de/solder components, design and fabricate PCB's, or in the direction of enclosures and mechanisms. You can go in the direction of understanding the market itself, and all the CPU/GPU/motherboard/PCI/m2/SATA/chipset combinations and how they work together. You might go in the direction of understanding systems programming and the kernel, ttys, and file descriptors, or in the direction of cryptography, etc. Complexity is a sign of a healthy ecosystem, and we see this repeated again and again in every area of human endeavor that continues unabated for any length of time. A field starts small and understandable by one person, but quickly continues to grow until it cannot reasonably be understood by any one person. Chemistry, math, engineering, physics are like this. Is it reasonable to lament this fact and consider modern practitioners any less than earlier ones for their lack of total knowledge of it?

StuffMaster 2y ago

>Okay, you might argue that in earlier decades programmers also tended to have an understanding of hardware circuit design and how a CPU and memory etc. works in terms of logical gates and clocks My degree included this and I'm very glad it did.