Comment by hackinthebochs
4 years ago
>Transforming operations on silicon into a form we can easily digest requires misrepresenting the problem.
Do you have an example, as this is entirely counter to my experience. Of course, you can misrepresent the behavior in words, but then you just used the wrong words to describe what's going on. That's not an indictment of abstraction generally. Abstractions necessarily leave something out, but what is left out is not an assertion of absence. This is not a misrepresentation.
Let me try explaining a few ways:
1. ---
You don't need to assert absence, the abstraction inherently ignores that which is left out, and the reader remains ignorant of it (that's the point, in fact). The abstraction asserts that the information it captures is the most useful information, and arguably it asserts that it is the only relevant information. This may be correct, but it may also be wrong. If it's wrong, any bugs that result will be hard to solve, because the information necessary to understand how A links to B is deliberately removed in the path from A to B.
2. ---
An abstraction is a conceptual reformulation of the problem. Each layer of abstraction reformulates the problem. It's lossy compression. Each layer of abstraction is a lossy compression of a lossy compression. You want to minimise the layers because running the problem through multiple compressors loses a lot information and obscures the constraints of the fundamental problem.
3. ---
You don't know a-priori if the information your abstraction leaves out is important.
I would go further and argue: leaving out the wrong information is usually a disaster, and very hard to reverse. One way to avoid this is to avoid abstractions (not that I'd recommend it, but it's part of the tradeoff).
4. ---
Abstractions misrepresent by simplifying. For example, the fundamental problem you're solving is moving electrons through wires. There are specific problems that occur at that level of specificity which you aren't worried about once you introduce the abstraction of the CPU's ISA. For example, bit instability.
Do those problems disappear at the level of the ISA? No, you've just introduced an abstraction which hides them, and hopefully they don't bubble up. The introduction of that abstraction also added overhead, partly in order to ensure the lower-level problems don't bubble up.
Ok, let's go up a few levels. You're now using a programming language. One of your fundamental problems here is cache locality. Does your code trigger cache misses? Well, it's not always clear, and it becomes less clear the more layers of abstraction you add.
"But cache locality rarely matters," ok, but sometimes it does, and if you have 10 layers of abstraction, good luck solving that. Can you properly manage cache locality in Clojure? Not a chance. It's too abstract. What happens when your Clojure code is eventually too slow? You're fucked. The abstraction not only makes the problem hard to identify, it makes it impossible to solve.
Abstractions are about carving up the problem space into conceptual units to aid comprehension. But these abstractions do not suggest lower level details don't exist. What they do is provide sign posts from which one can navigate to the low level concern of interest. If I need to edit the code that reads from a file, ideally how the problem space is carved up allows me to zero-in on the right code by allowing me to eliminate irrelevant code from my search. It's a semantic b-tree search. Without this tower of abstractions, you have to read the entire codebase linearly to find the necessary points to edit. There's no way you can tell me this is more efficient.
Of course, not all problems are suited to this kind of conceptual division. Cross-cutting concerns are inherently the sort that cannot be isolated in a codebase. Your example of cache locality is case in point. You simply have to scan the entire codebase to find instances where your code is violating cache locality. Abstractions inherently can't help, and do hurt somewhat in the sense that there's more code to read. But the benefits overall are worth it in most contexts.
I feel like you didn't really engage with most of what I said. It sounds like you're repeating what you were taught as an undergraduate (I hope that doesn't come across as crass).
I understand the standard justifications for abstraction - I'm saying: I have found that those justifications do not take into account or accurately describe the problems that result, and they definitely underestimate the severity. Repeatedly changing the shape of a problem until it is unrecognisable results in a monster, and it's not as easy to tame as our CS professors make out.
To reiterate: Twitter, with a development budget of billions was crashing people's entire browsers for multiple years. That's not even server-side, where the real complexity is - that's the client. That kind of issue simply should not exist, and it wouldn't if it were running on a (much) shallower stack.
This is a side note, but you keep referencing the necessity of the tower. Bear in mind what happens when you increase the branching factor on a tree. You don't need a tower to segment the problem effectively. 100-item units allow segmenting one million items with three layers, and 10 billion items with five. Larger units mean much, much fewer layers.
4 replies →