I think we're addressing different points in the article, especially in that 'readability' and 'complexity' are distinct. Also, I think the author does make va

I think we're addressing different points in the article, especially in that 'readability' and 'complexity' are distinct. Also, I think the author does make valid points, which is why I qualified that we can all choose our preferred places on that continuum of abstraction. My point is that it is sometimes (or from my perspective, often) worth it to deal with more complex (as in higher-level) technologies via tools that allow us to de-abstract those technologies than to focus on using only technologies for which we can understand every detail of their implementation. Trying to understand assembly written by a human vs assembly spat out by a compiler (with its optimizations, etc.) is a very different beast, but thanks to the tools of higher-level programming languages and compilers we rarely need to fiddle around with machine-generated assembly. Similarly, with reliable tools, we would not need to fiddle around with raw HTTP 2.0 workings, and thus rarely would the concern of immediate human-readability be an issue.