There are many layers to this. But there is one style of programming that concerns me. Where you neither understand the layer above you (why the product exists and what the goal of the system is) nor the layer below (how to actually implement the behavior). In the past, many developers barely understood the business case, but at least they understood how to translate into code, and could put backpressure on the busin…
I am still missing something like Claude code that's less "hands-off" and optimizes for small edits instead of full feature development Like you're sitting in your ide, select a few rows, press (for example) caps lock to activate speech and then just say a short line what it should adjust or similar - which is then staged for the next adjustments to be done with the same UX Like saying "okay, I need a new usecase her…
Nobody knows how the whole system works
101–110 of 226 posts
Re: Nobody knows how the whole system works
#102This article is about people using abstractions without knowing how they work. This is fine. This is how progress is made. But someone designed the abstraction (e.g. the Wifi driver, the processor, the transistor), and they made sure it works and provides an interface to the layers above. Now you could say a piece of software completely written by a coding agent is just another abstraction, but the article does not r…
The big problem is that now exist an actual risk most will never be able to MAKE abstractions. Sure, lets be on the shoulders of the giants but before IA most do some extra work and flex their brains.
Everyone make abstractions, and hide the "accidental complexity" for my current task is good, but I should deal with the "necessary complexity" to say I have, actually, done a job.
If is only being a dumb pipe...
Re: Nobody knows how the whole system works
#103Re: Nobody knows how the whole system works
#104Then you know “what” to build.
Re: Nobody knows how the whole system works
#105LinkedIn is weeks/months behind topics that originate from X. It suggests you might be living in a bubble if you believe X has fallen.
Re: Nobody knows how the whole system works
#106“Finally, Bucciarelli is right that systems like telephony are so inherently complex, have been built on top of so many different layers in so many different places, that no one person can ever actually understand how the whole thing works. This is the fundamental nature of complex technologies: our knowledge of these systems will always be partial, at best. Yes, AI will make this situation worse. But it’s a situatio…
With all hands on deck scrambling HARD, a week later we still didn’t have everything back up, because we didn’t know how. A ton of it had never been down since the 60s.
A mess indeed.
Re: Nobody knows how the whole system works
#107To a reasonable degree, yes, I can. I am also probably an outlier, and the product of various careers, with a small dose of autism sprinkled in. My first career was as a Submarine Nuclear Electronics Technician / Reactor Operator in the U.S. Navy. As part of that training curriculum, I was taught electronics theory, troubleshooting, and repair, which begins with "these are electrons" and ends with "you can now troubleshoot a VMEbus [0] Motorola 68000-based system down to the component level." I also later went back to teach at that school, and rewrote the 68000 training curriculum to use the Intel 386 (progress, eh?).
Additionally, all submariners are required to undergo an oral board before being qualified, and analogous questions like that are extremely common, e.g. "I am a drop of seawater. How do I turn the light on in your rack?" To answer that question, you end up drawing (from memory) an enormous amount of systems and connecting them together, replete with the correct valve numbers and electrical buses, as well as explaining how all of them work, and going down various rabbit holes as the board members see fit, like the throttling characteristics of a gate valve (sub-optimal). If it's written down somewhere, or can be derived, it's fair game. And like TFA's discussion about Brendan Gregg's practice of finding someone's knowledge limit, the board members will not stop until they find something you don't know - at which point you are required to find it out, and get back to them.
When I got into tech, I applied this same mindset. If I don't know something, I find out. I read docs, I read man pages, I test assumptions, I tinker, I experiment. This has served me well over the years, with seemingly random knowledge surfacing during an incident, or when troubleshooting. I usually don't remember all of it, but I remember enough to find the source docs again and refresh my memory.
Re: Nobody knows how the whole system works
#108> “What happens when you type a URL into your browser’s address bar and hit enter?” You can talk about what happens at all sorts of different levels (e.g., HTTP, DNS, TCP, IP, …). But does anybody really understand all of the levels? [Paraphrasing]: interrupts, 802.11ax modulation scheme, QAM, memory models, garbage collection, field effect transistors... To a reasonable degree, yes, I can. I am also probably an outl…
Re: Nobody knows how the whole system works
#109Re: Nobody knows how the whole system works
#110There are many layers to this. But there is one style of programming that concerns me. Where you neither understand the layer above you (why the product exists and what the goal of the system is) nor the layer below (how to actually implement the behavior). In the past, many developers barely understood the business case, but at least they understood how to translate into code, and could put backpressure on the busin…
The average tenure of a developer for the longest was 2.5 years not to mention the developer changing teams, even before AI many developers didn’t know how the code they were brought in to maintain works. > My English instructions do not leave any residual growth. I learn nothing to send back up the chain, and I know nothing of what's below. Why should I exist? When you use Claude code, tell it to keep a markdown fil…
Is this not a job for LLMs, though?