Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by palata 355 days ago
I am not sure exactly where you are going with that. But yeah, sure, not everybody needs assembly.

My point is that because the author uses assembly as an example does not mean that their points are not valid.

1 comments

I think even this point about seeing through all the abstractions being "real engineers" still limits you to, basically, people in their 60s at the youngest.

I just think it's a reductionist view and one that's not necessary. Practical example: beyond reading SQL ANALYZE, I have no idea how Postgres organises and queries data beyond a rough understanding of the model that it exposes. I guess I'm not a "real engineer" because I couldn't tell you how that data is laid out on the disk for efficiency. Yet I'm generally able to write pretty performant data models and query it.

I know engineers who can't even do that, yet their knowledge of DOM and browser logic is so fucking insane, they fixed a shitload of longstanding issues in our product. Where is the line on them being "real engineers?" Is that good enough, or do they need to go deeper into the browser?

I know engineers who don't have that level of depth in either, yet they're consistently able to write bug-free code that's extremely well tested. Do they understand how Python bytecode works? No, they don't have a clue (frankly, neither do I). Yet they solve every problem in their space.