3 ms·

To your point, we use abstractions all the damn time. They're everywhere. Even programming languages are an abstraction (especially high level ones). You and I,

To your point, we use abstractions all the damn time. They're everywhere. Even programming languages are an abstraction (especially high level ones). You and I, and everybody else here doesn't pick a cylinder and a block to write to and tell the hard drive to move it's arm into place and record the magnetic data, no we all talk about inserting a row into the DB. Abstractions are essential to productivity or you'll never get out of the "make it from scratch" trap

sgarland 2y ago
Yes, but there is a line to be drawn somewhere. Filesystems are sufficiently advanced such that there’s no meaningful gains to be had from manually allocating CHS for data, and they provide housekeeping. C abstracts a lot of architecture-specific information away, but still requires that you understand a modicum of memory management; if you understand it (and cache line access) well, you can get even more performance. Python abstracts that away as well, and gives you a huge standard library to accomplish many common tasks with ease. You can quickly make a prototype in Python, but it won’t be as performant as C. You can spend time profiling it and moving computationally-heavy parts into C extensions (I do this for fun and learning), but you’ll likely spend more time and get worse results than if you just rewrote it. Docker is an abstraction over already-existing technology like cgroups. It provides an easy-to-understand model, and a common language. This is quite valuable, but it does allow one to not know about what it’s hiding, which is problematic when troubleshooting – for example, naïvely assuming that querying /proc in a container shows the CPU resources allocated to the container, rather than the host. That’s how I view abstractions. They can be incredibly useful, but they usually have trade-offs, and those should always be considered. Most importantly, you should at a minimum be aware of what you’re giving up by using them, even if you don’t fully understand it.

sgarland 2y ago

Yes, but there is a line to be drawn somewhere. Filesystems are sufficiently advanced such that there’s no meaningful gains to be had from manually allocating CHS for data, and they provide housekeeping. C abstracts a lot of architecture-specific information away, but still requires that you understand a modicum of memory management; if you understand it (and cache line access) well, you can get even more performance. Python abstracts that away as well, and gives you a huge standard library to accomplish many common tasks with ease. You can quickly make a prototype in Python, but it won’t be as performant as C. You can spend time profiling it and moving computationally-heavy parts into C extensions (I do this for fun and learning), but you’ll likely spend more time and get worse results than if you just rewrote it. Docker is an abstraction over already-existing technology like cgroups. It provides an easy-to-understand model, and a common language. This is quite valuable, but it does allow one to not know about what it’s hiding, which is problematic when troubleshooting – for example, naïvely assuming that querying /proc in a container shows the CPU resources allocated to the container, rather than the host. That’s how I view abstractions. They can be incredibly useful, but they usually have trade-offs, and those should always be considered. Most importantly, you should at a minimum be aware of what you’re giving up by using them, even if you don’t fully understand it.