"Low-level code" rarely is, though. You're already up a dozen or so layers of abstraction.https://twitter.com/sehurlburt/status/913153697462362112 …
-
-
I agree. Leaky abstraction is the only time you have to worry about being too high level.
-
All abstractions are leaky though, and I'm sure one could use Gödel's Theorem to prove that.
-
Leaky for what you are working on. Newtonian physic is a leaky abstraction for planets but works fine for bridges.
-
Exactly. It's always a trade-off.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
A Girard–Reynolds polymorphic lambda calculus seems to be a good candidate for an understandable lower layer ;)
-
C'mon. A p-n-junction is an understandable lower layer!!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You may wish to avoid Intel CPUs then, since at this point nobody knows how/why they work :P.
-
I bloody wish I could!
-
I'm of the personal opinion that "no single person having a grasp on the whole product" is bad enough. Intel is _far_ worse...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
i would add that the abstraction layer should not hide errors / exceptions
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You don't usually need to think about transistors while writing code though. Sometimes the abstraction is good enough.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
My first language was also Haskell :) anyway, I believe it’s important to learn abstractions but just after having a good understanding 1/2
-
on how the “lower-levels” work - like you said. Abstractions are ok if you can understand at least C imo 2/2
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, but in Teams it's often hard to make sure everyone understand the layers...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.