Re:Leaky Abstractions
by klodolph on Thursday June 03, 2021 @10:58AM
(#27382339)
If you're going into the details of what conditions a TCP connection needs, you're no longer talking about an abstraction.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
An abstraction doesn't mean you can close your eyes and everything will work by magic. They're extremely useful tools, but like I said: garbage in, garbage out.
> An abstraction doesn't mean you can close your eyes and everything will work by magic.
Right... that's why they're called "leaky abstractions". Because when you don't pay attention to the implementation details and their constraints, things break.
If it weren't leaky, you'd call it a "specification" instead of an "abstraction".
Requirements are not the same thing as implementation details. 2 + 2 = 4 is a sound abstraction, the fact that 1 + 2 doesn't = 4 doesn't make it "leaky".