[davesque]

I feel like this article should be called "The Law of Bad Abstractions." I often see this cited as a blanket rejection of complexity in software. But complexity is unavoidable and even necessary. A skillful engineer will therefore design their abstractions carefully and correctly, balancing time spent thinking forward against time spent implementing a solution. I think Joel understands this, but it feels weird how he frames it as a "law", as though it's something he's discovered instead of a simple fact that arises from the nature of what abstractions are: things that stand in for (or mediate interaction with) some other thing without actually being that thing. What a surprise that the stand-in ends up not being the actual thing it's standing in for!