5 ms·

>However, others (and I include myself in this camp), are completionists. Abstraction is an annoyance, and not knowing is like an itch that needs to be scratche

by Edmond 13y ago

>However, others (and I include myself in this camp), are completionists. Abstraction is an annoyance, and not knowing is like an itch that needs to be scratched. I think this a common fallacy that many developers fall victim to. Our entire modern lives consist of using things we don't understand, by this logic you should also not fly in a modern aircraft because I am sure you don't fully understand how they work. Better yet, you should refuse to drive your car. >Super duper high levels of abstraction is a real problem. Not at all. If an abstraction saves you a ton of time, you should accept it by all means. If you are your boss whose money is being wasted because someone refuses to use a time saving abstraction, I am sure that person would not be your employee for long.

doktrin 13y ago
> refuse to drive your car If I were engineering a car or a service tightly integrated with one, I would be pretty interested in knowing how cars works. > If you are your boss whose money is being wasted because someone refuses to use a time saving abstraction That's a bit out of context, don't you think? The article was making a claim regarding how beginners should learn web development - not how businesses should be run. However, since you bring it up - in my experience misunderstood abstractions are at the root of many, if not most, security vulnerabilities. Trusting the system without understanding it is often quite irresponsible.
- Anderkent 13y ago
  >If I were engineering a car or a service tightly integrated with one, I would be pretty interested in knowing how cars works. But if you aren't, you don't. If you're building a web application, you're the delivery driver, not the mechanic. You just need to know how to use the car.
  - doktrin 13y ago
    > If you're building a web application, you're the delivery driver, not the mechanic. That's a flawed analogy. Delivery drivers aren't responsible for configuring or providing maintenance on the packages they deliver. However, this is drifting pretty far out of scope of the original discussion, which concerned learning strategies for aspiring developers. While I think it's a good idea to have an understanding of the systems we build on top of, that's just my opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree.
jiggy2011 13y ago
If I was flying in an aircraft I would expect the pilot to have at least some understanding of how/why it stays in the air!
- falcolas 13y ago
  Good luck with that. As a pilot school alumni, I can safely say that the Bernoulli principle, and more importantly how it applies to an open system like an aircraft wing, is pretty fuzzy for most of my former classmates (I know because I was tutoring them on flight physics). Understanding the cause and effect between your interactions with the flight stick and throttle is one thing, understanding the physics behind it is another entirely.
  - pfranz 13y ago
    It reminds me of something I've noticed watching artists work. Professionals will either know all of the underlying technology to get the result they want, or they know very little of it but are so familiar with the input/output they can get the result they want. Most all photographers know basic exposure rules, but there are some very good photographers that don't know much beyond that. They rely on trail and error to get consistent results and probably know their tools better than someone who spent that time jumping around to different tools but know the concepts really well.
    - girvo 13y ago
      Funny you say that about photographers. I learnt from trial and error, and after a few years was taking some photos that I'm still proud of today. Then, a few years ago I decided to learn the concepts and apply them to what I'd already learnt, and now I feel I'm even better. My best photos now are as good as (or a bit better) my older best photos, but I can capture them more consistently. It's really fun. As an aside, the best thing I did was force myself to use a 1963 Minolta rangefinder, with one film type and speed only, for an entire year. Manual everything. This allowed me to really learn those concepts properly, but it was still steeped in trial and error; reading the concepts, then coming up with them afterwards from first principles is easily the best way for myself to learn a topic :)
GeneralMayhem 13y ago
I understand the basic laws of physics, and I understand the premise of internal combustion. Sure, there are a lot of details that I'm missing, but I get the basic idea. Similarly, I may not be able to design a modern processor from scratch, and I don't have the time to build my own robust Web framework, but I know at least the basic idea of every layer. That's enough to make me comfortable using a framework. I don't have to be intimately familiar with every line of code, at least to begin with, I just need to understand how it works in broad strokes.
- Edmond 13y ago
  Your knowledge of basic physics is a function of your education and merely coincidental that it could be of help in understanding internal combustion engines...unless you purposefully took physics classes for this reason. Abstractions are a basic requirement for any sort of advancement, there is no inherent virtue in knowing what's under the hood unless you have a good reason to dig deeper. When you get sick you take drugs that may actually kill you, you don't say I am not going to take this pill because I don't know how it works. Heck, I have no idea how the lowly Tylenol works and I take it all the time:)
luikore 13y ago
How do you know if it is a time saving abstraction or a time wasting abstraction without knowing how it works?

by Edmond 13y ago

doktrin 13y ago

> refuse to drive your car If I were engineering a car or a service tightly integrated with one, I would be pretty interested in knowing how cars works. > If you are your boss whose money is being wasted because someone refuses to use a time saving abstraction That's a bit out of context, don't you think? The article was making a claim regarding how beginners should learn web development - not how businesses should be run. However, since you bring it up - in my experience misunderstood abstractions are at the root of many, if not most, security vulnerabilities. Trusting the system without understanding it is often quite irresponsible.

Anderkent 13y ago
>If I were engineering a car or a service tightly integrated with one, I would be pretty interested in knowing how cars works. But if you aren't, you don't. If you're building a web application, you're the delivery driver, not the mechanic. You just need to know how to use the car.
- doktrin 13y ago
  > If you're building a web application, you're the delivery driver, not the mechanic. That's a flawed analogy. Delivery drivers aren't responsible for configuring or providing maintenance on the packages they deliver. However, this is drifting pretty far out of scope of the original discussion, which concerned learning strategies for aspiring developers. While I think it's a good idea to have an understanding of the systems we build on top of, that's just my opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree.

jiggy2011 13y ago

If I was flying in an aircraft I would expect the pilot to have at least some understanding of how/why it stays in the air!

falcolas 13y ago
Good luck with that. As a pilot school alumni, I can safely say that the Bernoulli principle, and more importantly how it applies to an open system like an aircraft wing, is pretty fuzzy for most of my former classmates (I know because I was tutoring them on flight physics). Understanding the cause and effect between your interactions with the flight stick and throttle is one thing, understanding the physics behind it is another entirely.
- pfranz 13y ago
  It reminds me of something I've noticed watching artists work. Professionals will either know all of the underlying technology to get the result they want, or they know very little of it but are so familiar with the input/output they can get the result they want. Most all photographers know basic exposure rules, but there are some very good photographers that don't know much beyond that. They rely on trail and error to get consistent results and probably know their tools better than someone who spent that time jumping around to different tools but know the concepts really well.
  - girvo 13y ago
    Funny you say that about photographers. I learnt from trial and error, and after a few years was taking some photos that I'm still proud of today. Then, a few years ago I decided to learn the concepts and apply them to what I'd already learnt, and now I feel I'm even better. My best photos now are as good as (or a bit better) my older best photos, but I can capture them more consistently. It's really fun. As an aside, the best thing I did was force myself to use a 1963 Minolta rangefinder, with one film type and speed only, for an entire year. Manual everything. This allowed me to really learn those concepts properly, but it was still steeped in trial and error; reading the concepts, then coming up with them afterwards from first principles is easily the best way for myself to learn a topic :)

GeneralMayhem 13y ago

I understand the basic laws of physics, and I understand the premise of internal combustion. Sure, there are a lot of details that I'm missing, but I get the basic idea. Similarly, I may not be able to design a modern processor from scratch, and I don't have the time to build my own robust Web framework, but I know at least the basic idea of every layer. That's enough to make me comfortable using a framework. I don't have to be intimately familiar with every line of code, at least to begin with, I just need to understand how it works in broad strokes.

Edmond 13y ago
Your knowledge of basic physics is a function of your education and merely coincidental that it could be of help in understanding internal combustion engines...unless you purposefully took physics classes for this reason. Abstractions are a basic requirement for any sort of advancement, there is no inherent virtue in knowing what's under the hood unless you have a good reason to dig deeper. When you get sick you take drugs that may actually kill you, you don't say I am not going to take this pill because I don't know how it works. Heck, I have no idea how the lowly Tylenol works and I take it all the time:)

luikore 13y ago

How do you know if it is a time saving abstraction or a time wasting abstraction without knowing how it works?