[adrianN]

Eh, sufficient complexity is indistinguishable from magic. No single human can understand the whole system of a modern computer in full detail. There is just too much stuff to learn for one lifetime. That's why we build all those abstractions in the first place.

[smoldesu]

I think the answer here is somewhere in between. You're right that there will probably never be someone with a comprehensive understanding of low level programming who is also a physics prodigy and understands every minute detail of computers, but that doesn't make it "magic". We build abstractions in layers so everyone can granularly learn what matters to them and ignore the parts that don't. The amount of magic in a computer is inversely proportional to how deep you are in the abstraction layers, but I don't think that means it can't be understood.

The word "grok" does a pretty good job of summing up how I feel on it. I think most people can grok a computer, but that doesn't mean they could tell you every detail about it's use/manufacturing/operation/architecture/lithography. But we know enough to have a working knowledge, and for the purposes of this question I think that's what matters. Computers are designed to output predictable, reproducable behavior. They are meant to be unferstood by design.

[catach]

I believe that the article agrees with you, and is arguing for a narrower claim.

[andai]

>Modern software and hardware systems contain almost unimaginable complexity amongst many distinct layers, each building atop each other. It is common — and substantially correct — to observe that no single human understands all of the layers in, say, a modern web application, starting from the transistors and silicon up through micro-architecture, the CPU instruction set, the OS kernel, the user libraries, the compilers, the web browser, and Javascript VM, the Javascript libraries, and the application code, not even to mention all the network services invoked in loading that code.

>In the face of this complexity, it’s easy to assume that there’s just too much to learn, and to adopt the mental shorthand that the systems we work with are best treated as black boxes, not to be understood in any detail.

>I argue against that approach. You will never understand every detail of the implementation of every level on that stack; but you can understand all of them to some level of abstraction, and any specific layer to essentially any depth necessary for any purpose.