The author misses the whole point of abstractions, and that is a layer B that covers layer A so completely that no one using layer B needs to know how layer A w

The author misses the whole point of abstractions, and that is a layer B that covers layer A so completely that no one using layer B needs to know how layer A works at all, except for those working on the layer A/B bridge. For example, binary logic is a perfect abstraction over semiconductor physics. No one doing computer science needs to understand anymore the complexities of voltages and transistors and whatever. TCP is a perfect abstraction over IP. Memory as a big array of bytes is a perfect abstraction over the intricacies of timing DRAM refreshes. And that's about it. No one reading this post has written an abstraction ever. (a leaky abstraction is not an abstraction). So yes, actually, abstractions are free, and they don't leak. That's the whole point. The problem is that what you call an abstraction isn't an abstraction. Computer science's complete failure to create a new abstraction since like TCP intrigues me. Why don't we have a system X that abstracts over memory accesses so well that no one needs to know anymore how caches or memory locality works? Why aren't there entire subfields studying this?