Abstractions in adulthood

In Surfaces & Essences[1], Hofstadter talks a lot about abstraction. Adults abstract more than children. For evidence, take the Tower of Hanoi game: move the stack to another peg, moving one disk at a time and never putting a bigger disk atop a smaller disk. It takes 7 moves for 3 disks.

When 8-yr-old children solve this puzzle, they often take many more moves, because they impose on themselves another restriction: move the disks one peg at a time. They never move the disk directly from the left peg to the right peg.

When thinking about journeys, adults abstract them to a state change. I was in St. Louis, now I’m in Kansas City. Kids don’t separate that from the trip. Did we stop at McDonald’s in Kingdom City or Cracker Barrel in Columbia? To a kid, there is no going to Kansas City without these details.

Data takes journeys through our code. We can concern ourselves with the details of getting from here to there — instantiate the new structure, populate it in a for-loop — or we can declare where we want to end up and let the internals handle the rest — calling filter or map on a sequence.

Some people find the details of the journey to be the interesting part of programming. Run a tiny bit faster, or in half the memory, or memoize certain bits. I’m glad these people exist, so they can write libraries and I can use the libraries and ignore all this most of the time.

Stating the end result, and not the means of getting there, is what Bret Victor calls “goal-based programming.” [2] I call it declarative style. This is a tenant of functional programming.

But there’s a catch! Sometimes the kids are right, and the journey is important.
Take that trip from STL to KC. If I abstract the trip to a simple location change, me.inKC(), am I missing something important?
Maybe. If I took the bus or the train, then I can take the same trip over and over, and it doesn’t make a difference to anybody. No matter how many times I take the bus to KC, I’m in KC. The process is idempotent: calling it once is the same as calling it over and over. But if I came by car, and got a speeding ticket, there’s a side effect! Do that four times and I’m going to jail in Boonville.
Or what if I implemented the journey as “drive 200 miles west”? Then the outcome would depend on my current location. me.inKC().inKC() would return me in Hays, KS. In this case, the journey is not referentially transparent. The output of the function depends on something other than its input, so the result isn’t the same every time it’s called. (yes, I’m stretching the metaphor in questionable ways. Be amused.)

Therefore, the journey — the “how” — can be implemented in a way that it matters, or in a way that it doesn’t. If an algorithm writes to the log or the database, such that how many times it’s called affects the world, then we have to care about it. If the code reads from the database or other global state, then it won’t do the same thing every time and we have to care about it.

We choose how to implement our journeys. We can keep them well-behaved: we can take public transit and specify the destination. That way we can leave the details behind the scenes; my travel agent can book a bus or a train, whatever’s cheaper that day, because all that matters is at the end of the journey I’m in KC. This leaves both me (the writer of code) and future-me (the reader of code) with more mental space to spend on why I’m in KC, and what to do once I’m there.

As @runarorama once said: “Write it functionally. Like an adult.”

[1] Surfaces & Essences, Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking. I don’t recommend the book; it’s incredibly slow. Follow me on twitter instead.
[2] Bret Victor, The Future of Programming.

6 thoughts on “Abstractions in adulthood

  1. If you'll allow me to continue with the child/adult analogy, I think ultimately being an adult means having the maturity to recognize the benefits and drawbacks of multiple ways of doing things.Children tend to find a shiny new thing and get super excited about it, and everything becomes a nail to their new hammer.Children lack the ability to consider other people, and what their desires and experiences are. They think only of themselves, and if it works for them then obviously it must work for everyone.Children also live only in the present and lack the context to look back at the ways people have done things, and realize that at one time the thing you are rejecting was the new hotness that solved everyone's problems. Extrapolate that into the future. Perhaps today's new hotness isn't a panacea.I believe that we are in agreement here. The ability to step back and see \”tools\” good for different uses, instead of only hammers and screwdrivers, is actually the ability to abstract. The ability to look back at the experiences of other people, generalize them, and apply them to yourself and others is also requires the ability to abstract.I don't know I would go far as to say that one way of doing things, or one set of experiences that people have had are \”adult\” (implying that the others aren't?).

  2. I recently came across your blog and have been reading along.I'm impressed. You're truly well informed and very intelligent. You wrote something that people could understand and made the subject intriguing for everyone. I'm saving this for future use. Choice Home Care Atlanta

  3. There is most that you simply will get from this episode. they're covering everything managing new energy. most that you simply will get from it all. continue the nice work. click hereManchester Escorts

  4. Hey !!what a post u had share. Really like it. such a great work, beautifully done here. The way you are explaining it also good as well. Thanks for sharing. Visit college paper for best papers.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: