TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Is software abstraction killing civilization? (2021)

219 点作者 yamrzou4 个月前

32 条评论

recursivedoubts4 个月前
I teach the systems class at Montana State, where we go from transistors up to a real computing system, and I have students that don&#x27;t understand what a file system really is when they start my class<p>I agree that blow is wrong on some details, but I really think we need to be thinking hard around a NAND-to-Tetris style education that starts in high school for our technical students.<p>I use &quot;outdated&quot; models like Little Man Computer and a simple visual MIPS emulator which, even though they aren&#x27;t realistic, at least give the students a sense of where we came from, with a level of complexity that a normal human can get their head around. When I look at modern 64 bit architecture books that get suggested for me to teach with I just laugh.<p>Anyway, not to say I agree 100% with Blow on everything, but connecting technology down to the roots is a hard problem.
评论 #42987484 未加载
评论 #42988187 未加载
评论 #42988222 未加载
评论 #42988023 未加载
评论 #42987906 未加载
评论 #42990501 未加载
评论 #42991057 未加载
评论 #42988191 未加载
评论 #42991476 未加载
评论 #42987630 未加载
评论 #42999998 未加载
评论 #42988071 未加载
评论 #42990765 未加载
评论 #42988491 未加载
评论 #42988172 未加载
评论 #42988135 未加载
评论 #42987827 未加载
harrall4 个月前
If an older web developer rants about abstraction, they will target React developers.<p>If a Python dev rants about abstraction, they will target older web developers.<p>If a C++ application dev rants about abstractions, they will target Python developers.<p>If a firmware dev rants about abstractions, they will target application developers.<p>If an electrical engineer rants about abstractions, they will target firmware developers.<p>Drawing the line for “excessive abstraction” based on what you personally know and calling everything afterwards as “killing civilization” is quite a take.
评论 #42987925 未加载
greybox3 个月前
You make some very good points here. I&#x27;ve watched the talk too and criticism of it is important.<p>I have to say though Blow is right when he says: &quot;you can&#x27;t just Draw pixels to the screen&quot;<p>I am a game engine programmer at a &#x27;medium sized&#x27; games company and it is becoming VERY difficult to hire anyone to work on graphics code. DX12 (and others of the same generation) is a massive step up from what previous generations (DX11) used to demand of the programmer. Doing anything at all with these APIs is a massive task and by Microsoft&#x27;s own admission (I can&#x27;t find the quote from the docs anymore, citation needed), DX12 is extremely difficult to learn without experience with previous graphics APIs.<p>I see a lot of people using the argument: &quot;but these APIs are only for developers that want to really push the limits of what the graphics card can do, and want to implement very low level optimizations.&quot; and that&#x27;s partially true. But it&#x27;s now the industry standard and it&#x27;s nigh-on unteachable to anyone without previous experience.<p>Unless something changes, the hiring pool is going to continue to decrease in size.
评论 #42990990 未加载
评论 #42990787 未加载
评论 #42990527 未加载
评论 #42999936 未加载
ilrwbwrkhv4 个月前
I think JavaScript on the server and React and these things has really made the web a mess of software development compared to how little stuff it actually does.<p>I know for a fact a bunch of kids now do not even know that HTML is what gets rendered in the browser. They think that React is itself what browsers render.<p>Not to mention the absolute idiot of a CEO of Vercel who thinks React is the Linux kernel of development.
评论 #42988715 未加载
评论 #42990926 未加载
评论 #42995239 未加载
评论 #42990871 未加载
评论 #42987478 未加载
评论 #42987497 未加载
sd94 个月前
Blow often makes fantastic points about development, and often completely misses the mark.<p>He’s accomplished great things and has ideas worth listening to - but also plenty of nonsense that’s presented indistinguishably.<p>I felt quite strongly that the collapse of civilisation talk was one of those pieces of nonsense, and I’ve largely ignored it (despite listening to it twice). I’m grateful to OP for providing a more principled rebuttal.<p>Don’t even get me started on Casey Muratori, who tries to do the Blow thing but doesn’t even get the good parts right.
评论 #42990745 未加载
评论 #42987834 未加载
评论 #42987942 未加载
评论 #42987338 未加载
BirAdam4 个月前
There are certainly plenty of issues with the modern software landscape, and I do think too much abstraction is a problem. Yet, the opposite extreme is also bad, and people overly romanticize the past. Not only were crashes and reboots problems, not only did Amiga and such have compatibility problems between hardware versions, but even systems that strove for compatibility suffered from incompatibilities.<p>The fact is, even on the most unreliable modern system (Windows 11) my computer is far more reliable than any computer I had before about 2010. It can also run software written for Windows 95. That’s a very good run. A computer being usable day to day is better than one that isn’t.
travisgriggs4 个月前
Not all simplifications are abstractions. Not all abstractions are simplifications. But the pursuit of simplification is usually what motivates an abstraction. I don’t think that abstractions kill software, or civilization for that matter, but ill begotten abstractions in the name of short win simplifications, puts a drag on the flexibility and agility and approachability of either.<p>Take syntactic sugar in just about any language. There’s usually a breaking point, where you can say the localized gain in simplification for this particular nuance is not worth how complex this tool (language) has become. People don’t make more mistakes in a syntax heavy language because of any particular element, but because using the tool well to solve complex problems just gets difficult (regardless of what a compiler might guarantee you).<p>I look at the complexity that async and coroutines adds to my experience when programming anything “threaded like” in Kotlin compared to how I deal with the same sorts of problems in Elixir&#x2F;Erlang and it’s just night and day difference. Both have abstractions&#x2F;simplifications to the age old problem of parallel&#x2F;async computing, but one (the former) just multiplies simplicities to end up with something complex again and the other has an abstraction&#x2F;simplification that Just Works(tm) and really is simple.
dostick4 个月前
It appears that author is from that newer generation, and completely misses points because he just don’t know. Ironically the article is an example of what Blow was talking about. similar happens if I talk about how Figma is destroying the design world on unprecedented scale by normalising bad UX, UI and product management found in Figma itself, and get responses from younger designers that everything is great, completely baffled. You have all that knowledge because you grew up in that environment. They didn’t, and not likely they can learn the equivalent of culture and experience anywhere.
评论 #42987381 未加载
评论 #42987194 未加载
评论 #42987171 未加载
评论 #42988184 未加载
评论 #42987494 未加载
评论 #42987198 未加载
rglover4 个月前
Ill-considered abstractions, yes. There are a lot of abstractions that you can tell are the first draft or attempt but because of tech&#x27;s &quot;religion of speed&quot;—and being drunk on hubris—end up shipping (vs being one of several iterations).<p>Then, if those abstractions are part of a popular project, other people copy them due to mimetics (under the watery banner of &quot;best practices&quot;).<p>Rinse and repeat for ~10-20 years and you have a gigantic mess on your hands. Even worse, in a hyper-social society (ironically, <i>because</i> of the technology), social consensus (for sake of not being found out as an &quot;impostor&quot;) around these not-quite-there solutions just propagates them.<p>FWIW, I love that Jonathan Blow talk and come back to it at least once per year. He doesn&#x27;t say anything controversial, but deep down, I think a lot of developers know that they&#x27;re not shipping their best (or guiding younger generations properly), so they get upset or feel called out.<p>We&#x27;ve just reached a state of culture in which chasing novelty has become commonplace (or in some cases, celebrated). Well-considered solutions used to be a cultural standard whereas now, anything that&#x27;s new (whether or not its actually <i>good</i>) has become the standard.<p>We can navel gaze and nitpick the details of Blow&#x27;s argument all we want, but the evidence is front and center—everywhere. And yes, over a long enough horizon, that can lead to civilizational collapse (and when you consider the amount of broken stuff in the world, arguably, already is).
gtsop4 个月前
It is unfortunate that someone needs to pick apart a flawed thesis in such detail (as the author did with Blow). The pure empiricist is equaly as detached from reality as the pure theorist, and as such Blow is making up arguments just because they fit his experience, cherry picking examples that fit his rants and promoting the exception to be the rule.
low_tech_punk4 个月前
I think this post is related: We are destroying software (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;antirez.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;145" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;antirez.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;145</a>)<p>I don&#x27;t disagree that software engineering is not as rigorous as it was. But software has also spread into much wider area, allowing many more people to participate as programmers, all thanks to abstractions.<p>I&#x27;m drawn to the romantic&#x2F;pure&#x2F;spartan aspect of low level programming too but I also need to make a living by solving problems in practical and scrappy ways.
评论 #42988625 未加载
DarkNova63 个月前
„ If we forget low level stuff, civilization will fall apart since we won&#x27;t be able to keep vital software running.“<p>I argue the other way around. There is too mich complexity involved with using low level systems to model high level processes. We use the wrong tools and often model our system in a way which mimics the initial dataflow instead of discovering our domain and have a higher level understanding.<p>Complexity kills. And we must do everything in our power ti keep complexity to its minimum and avoid accidental complexity.
评论 #42990541 未加载
bionhoward4 个月前
One reason I like Rust is it lets me replace a lot of high level Python stuff with faster and more correct code while also opening access a new world of low level C stuff I never had an opportunity to learn about, it’s been super fun to tinker with and I look forward to keep working with it!<p>Definitely good to broaden our horizons but also crucial to maintain focus…there is so much to learn, how can we balance the joy and productivity of software with the strategic imperative to build locally grown hardware?
alecco3 个月前
The problem is confusing the collapse of the Western civilization and civilization per se. China is very happy to pick up the pieces. In spite of their cultural weaknesses, on this point they do teach and learn how to do everything from scratch.<p>The West as a dominant civilization is absolutely collapsing. It&#x27;s just a matter of how long will it take. I hope China learns from our mistakes and has the will to fix their cultural shortcomings.
评论 #42990333 未加载
userbinator4 个月前
Abstraction isn&#x27;t the problem, overabstraction is; and I suspect the reason the latter is so common is because people don&#x27;t actually understand why and when abstraction is useful (and likewise, when it <i>isn&#x27;t</i>), so they blindly apply it whenever they can, with the misguided notion that since abstraction is somehow a good thing, the more abstract something is, the better it is.
natmaka4 个月前
IMHO part of the problem stems from teaching without carefully stating the nature of what is explained. A teacher should check that the audience reasonably knows what &#x27;convention&#x27; means, how it differs from &#x27;abstraction&#x27;, &#x27;truth&#x27;, &#x27;theory&#x27;, &#x27;measured fact&#x27;...<p>Bonus: explicitly recognizing that many terms (along with other conventions) aren&#x27;t adequate. According to the knowledge of those who coined them they appeared adequate at the time, and replacing them may induce confusions, would condemn existing knowledge and writings, and isn&#x27;t perfectly effective as the new convention may even prove inadequate later. I used to say that we may consider them as tributes to the the wonderful people who coined them.
sebastianconcpt4 个月前
This is a very interesting take but there is an underlying issue to software. An abstraction that isn&#x27;t at the software libraries&#x2F;system level: managerialism. The processualizing of all the things.<p>Rudyard Lynch has a provocative interesting take on it.
scotty794 个月前
&gt; Abstraction fosters ignorance about low level programming.<p>&gt; If we forget low level stuff, civilization will fall apart since we won&#x27;t be able to keep vital software running.<p>There&#x27;s barely anything to remember. Most of low level stuff did 180 in last 3 decades. RAM is slow now, compute is fast. Drives can be almost as fast as RAM. Sometimes it&#x27;s better to do more than less to make code branchless. It&#x27;s best if you can split your task into thousands of micro-threads and run on GPU.
deterministic3 个月前
There will always be youngsters who love to dive into machine code and low-level stuff. And there will always be a need for developers who can code low-level efficient device drivers, game engines etc.<p>So software abstractions is not something I worry about when it comes to the survival of civilization. Nukes seems to be more of a real threat IMHO.
ninetyninenine4 个月前
No it’s not. Software is killing the US and not because it abstracts low level stuff. It’s because it abstracts reality in such a way that the US is becoming a nation of software engineers ignorant of even how to build the stuff it programs. We’ve moved up the stack and moving up the stack requires people knowledgeable about the bottom.<p>One can’t exist without the other so the world isn’t getting destroyed. China is handling the bottom of the stack. And by understanding the bottom of the stack they also become good with the top.<p>I used to hear shit like China only knows how to manufacture stuff the US is good at design. And I keep thinking well if you submit an entire design to China to manufacture you don’t think they will figure out how to design? Knowing how to design is easy. Manufacturing or turning that design into reality is hard.<p>Software isn’t killing civilization. It’s killing the US and that may seem like the world if you lived here all your life.
评论 #42987832 未加载
illiac7863 个月前
Abstraction is a way to move work onto machines to make us humans more productive (at least that’s the plan). Machines do insane amount of useless (ok, highly inefficient) work to allow us to save some brain effort. Sure, some abstractions are counterproductive and add to complexity rather than making it easier for us. I’d argue it’s a minority though.
frozenlettuce3 个月前
No need to worry: there are amazing optimizations happening in the software and hardware world, but outside the US - unless you don&#x27;t consider these places as being part of &quot;Civilization&quot;
jrm44 个月前
This feels like plumbers thinking that using some weird type of toilet fitting is killing civilization.
评论 #42992012 未加载
jppope3 个月前
In a sense, I wrote an article about this exact thing: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jonpauluritis.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;4000years&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jonpauluritis.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;4000years&#x2F;</a><p>While fun to talk about, there really isn&#x27;t a danger
keninorlando4 个月前
I miss assembler and maximizing code efficiency to juggle 2k of ram.
评论 #42987367 未加载
评论 #42987534 未加载
Sparkyte4 个月前
In a sense abstraction does. You stop learning the fundamentals of how something works. Long enough as time goes by no one knows how the fundamentals work and a company fails.
评论 #42988196 未加载
torlok4 个月前
As somebody who works in embedded, and does kernel programming and low level networking, I wish any of Blow&#x27;s fear mongering was true. It would do wonders to my feeling of job security and self importance.
tolciho4 个月前
&gt; I&#x27;m not a historian and will not comment on this first part of the talk. It doesn&#x27;t matter much,<p>Okay.<p>&gt; What is robust? ... Is it the multi-year uptimes of a plethora of ...<p>Big uptime systems are dubious. Probably a lack of kernel patches, hardware patches, and who know if, on reboot, the system will actually boot and start the relevant services correctly. A bank once had their mainframe fail, and they were flailing around for a good long while, possibly because it had been about a decade since their last failure and everyone forgot what to do, or maybe Bob had retired. Or how about that host that boots four years into the future and now various things are quite broken? There was NTP, but an unrelated change had broken that on some firewall. &quot;Normal Accidents&quot; are somehow a thing in complex systems, as are black swan events. Quite possibly either or both were involved in the late bronze age whateveritwas, but naturally history doesn&#x27;t matter much.<p>&gt; Oh, and garbage collection and functional programming aren&#x27;t new abstractions. Lisp did both in the late 1950s<p>PAIP (Norvig) recounts that the garbage collection was so bad it was turned off and the LISP machines were let run until they ran out of memory, at which point they were rebooted. I guess this is a point for improved robustness in certain areas, though there are probably still &quot;<i>&#x2F;5 </i> * * * reboot-something&quot; type cron jobs out there for services that leak too much memory. No, management did not grant time to fix that service last I had to put in the most recent five minute reboot script. Many don&#x27;t get such a intimate view of the rusty bowels of the internet.<p>&gt; open up a Unix-type command line in Linux&#x2F;MacOS&#x2F;*BSD&#x2F;WSL, type &quot;ed&quot; at the prompt and see how far you get with your text editing<p>Some wacky systems do not install ed, or link it to nano or some other nonsense, so you may need to actually install ed to get the standard editor. If you happen to be stuck on such a system, `busybox vi` is tolerable—vim gussied up with color spam is not, especially the unreadable blue on the black console—though learning enough about ed might be good if you, hypothetically, ever have to fix an old system over a serial line at 3AM in the morning. There isn&#x27;t much to learn for such cases, &quot;a&quot; to append new lines, &quot;.&quot; on a line by itself to end that, &quot;&#x2F;foo&quot; to search, &quot;c&quot; to change that whole line (and then the &quot;.&quot; thing) and then &quot;wq&quot; to save. Great for edits were you don&#x27;t want other folks seeing the contents of, say, &#x2F;etc&#x2F;hostname.wg0. Or sometimes a cat of the file should be done to preserve it in the scrollback buffer, which has saved a non-zero number of configuration files across the internet. Ideally this sort of disaster training should be practiced by some now and then, but that does take time away from other things.<p>Back to the unloved history thing. A collapse can take a few centuries, which may be a problem given the recent emphasis on the current sprint or how the stock will be doing Tuesday (as opposed to the lease for Hong Kong, though a hundred years is a magnificently short period of time). So a few folks crying wolf or playing Cassandra might be a good thing to help point out past issues and maybe from that future shocks can be made less bad.<p>And of course one should beware the C people.
paul_h3 个月前
Killing or just another risk? As far back as the 80&#x27;s or 70&#x27;s there was the idea of losing ball bearing manufacture capability as a risk to society and civilization. I&#x27;d think the lack of a systemic defence to amplified mis and dis info is might higher in a list, with application of another software abstraction (merkle trees) being part of the solution. Well, defence of rule of law perhaps and less about layered technological aspects of civilization.
foxes4 个月前
Billionaires are killing civilisation
评论 #43034581 未加载
knodi4 个月前
Why stop here… not say easy access to clean water is destroying your health. Should walk two miles to the watering hole, carry it back, collect wood for fire and boil the water your self…<p>\s
评论 #42987548 未加载
评论 #42987393 未加载
rat874 个月前
No<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...</a><p>Of course not<p>And if it were it wouldn&#x27;t be something<p>c or c++ related but all the banks and unemployment systems still written in COBOL