I was able to find this comment, linking to a talk that coined(?) it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36091791 I guess in short you would say that learning a leaky simplifying abstraction actually increases the amount you have to learn.
When the abstraction fails you need to know all the implementation details of the thing being abstracted as well as the abstraction. 100 + 100 = 200. Often it’s easier and more productive overall to just learn the thing. It’s a false economy thinking you won’t need to.
I was able to find this comment, linking to a talk that coined(?) it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36091791 I guess in short you would say that learning a leaky simplifying abstraction actually increases the amount you have to learn.
When the abstraction fails you need to know all the implementation details of the thing being abstracted as well as the abstraction. 100 + 100 = 200. Often it’s easier and more productive overall to just learn the thing. It’s a false economy thinking you won’t need to.