Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • -1. Sarcastic and bad analogy, not an answer. Commented Dec 10, 2011 at 17:42
  • @Fosco Sarcastic, yes. Bad analogy? Why? It's exactly the same pattern that I've seen far too many times not to feel sarcastic about it. People used to one level of abstraction complaining that the introduction of an higher one is hiding the True Behaviour without remarking that what they take as the True Behaviour is just a level abstraction built over others. The only one I've never seen culprit of it are those making transistor models. They know very well they are building a level of abstraction over something mastered by nobody. Commented Dec 10, 2011 at 18:55
  • It is as common and as irritating as the other pattern, people used to a level of abstraction not wanting to use a lower one because it is too low without remarking that the question isn't "is it an higher or lower level of abstraction" but "is it the most appropriate one". Commented Dec 10, 2011 at 19:08
  • I get your point, but I still have a problem with the analogy and it's not a real answer. The switches on the front panel method no longer exists, so it's not a choice you can make... Some languages really do make things 'magic' and it's very difficult to give up control of the application flow and trust that your framework is going to put all the pieces together properly. Commented Dec 10, 2011 at 19:20
  • @Fosco, it always was difficult. I feel obligated to cite the story of Mel. And don't forget my second comment about the use of the right level of abstraction, it sometimes makes sense not to use the highest level available. Commented Dec 10, 2011 at 20:00