Is a 'Stack' the Best Way to Understand Everything? (2017)

Interesting take, but it misses the fundamental point of the stack metaphor: each layer has to depend on the existence of the previous layer. An operating system can't exist without hardware to run on; an application can't exist outside the context of an operating system. The author seems to think that any system with multiple components can be called a "stack" - at that point, you truly have reduced the term to a buzzword.

I got the impression that the author of this article doesn’t understand what a stack is. The examples he gives are all over the place.<p>The article was generally cringey but this sentence stood out:<p><i>Stack logic is only just finding its footing in the corporate world, and it hasn’t spilled into mainstream conversation just yet.</i>

It&#x27;s the best way to understand cleanly separated hierarchical systems, sure. So it&#x27;s great for computers (which are designed this way by humans to keep their complexity manageable), but it&#x27;s a poor way to understand biological systems (for example) which are a mush of innumerable interconnected feedback loops beyond the capacity of any human mind to fully understand.

&gt; Is a &#x27;X&#x27; the Best Way to Understand Everything?<p>No. Next question.

Once upon a time, Edsger Dijkstra, the inventor of the stack (data structure) attended a lecture by a prospective faculty member at UT Austin, who discussed topics related to a (network protocol) stack. Hilarity ensued.<p>Yeah, that&#x27;s got nothing to do with the article.

The original use of &quot;stack&quot; as a metaphor in programming <i>should</i> trace to assembly language, but I do not see any mention of that here. I would guess the people who have transformed the term into a &quot;buzzword&quot; are not well-versed in assembler.

Stack: a pile of objects, typically one that is neatly arranged.<p>Fundamentally, a stack is not about technology. Sure, it is used to represent a data structure in software, but the same can be said for queues, heaps, pipelines... And yes, it can also be used when the graphical representation of something looks like a pile of boxes sitting on top of each other, which is common in tech (ex: the TCP&#x2F;IP model).<p>It may be true that tech popularized the word &quot;stack&quot; but it is just as easy (in fact easier) to imagine a stack of books rather than anything software related. Using that as an argument that &quot;software is eating the world&quot; is circular reasoning.

I read this someplace.. thought it is fun to share.. we went from spaghetti (mainframe) code to lasagna (stacks &#x2F; tiered architecture) to ravioli (micro-services) :)

Definitely. Tough sometimes one have to allow for an abstraction leak : <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;c1.neweggimages.com&#x2F;NeweggImage&#x2F;ProductImage&#x2F;A1S7_1_20170516537927113.jpg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;c1.neweggimages.com&#x2F;NeweggImage&#x2F;ProductImage&#x2F;A1S7_1_...</a>

When Reggie Watts broke things down in terms of stacks, it helped me understand a lot more: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;CJQU22Ttpwc" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;CJQU22Ttpwc</a>

I hereby officially coin the next buzzword for 2020: Deep-Stack-Chain<p>Combining the AGI capabilities of Deep Learning with hyperdimensional system architectures to create decentralized Cloud infrastructure like never before!

People use the word &quot;stack&quot; in multiple ways. So... ?

I initially thought the title was in reference to the wonderful <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;stacks.math.columbia.edu&#x2F;about" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;stacks.math.columbia.edu&#x2F;about</a>.

There are 10 ways to understand everything:<p>1) A stack 10) a queue

Betteridge&#x27;s law of headlines strikes again.

How is there not a single mention of Hypercard?