Talk:Abstraction layer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computer science (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

The article currently quotes

A famous aphorism of David Wheeler goes: All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection

However, some people [1] seem to think the source of the quote is "Butler Lampson". What's the appropriate NPOV way to handle this? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Lampson attributes it to Wheeler (search for "Wheeler" in [2]), so the source is definitely not Lampson. Also see Talk:David_Wheeler (computer scientist). --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this right?[edit]

This page seems to conflate abstraction layers and suites/stacks which, in my mind, are very different things. OpenGL is an example of an abstraction layer, yes. But the OSI model is set of protocols, the layering of which simply communicates dependency.

Anyone agree? Bizarrefish (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the OSI protocols are that dependent on one another. It's not like the session layer cares about the networking header or anything. I wouldn't consider OSI an abstraction set either though, so I agree that some elaboration would be useful. Skl (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed "see also" link[edit]

I removed the link to Transparency (computing) because I fail to understand its relevance. I understand the layers of networking and programming APIs, but I don't see how transparancy fits into the concept. If someone else can explain it, I'd like to know. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


- abstraction levels - ideas with lower level of abstraction are more concrete than ideas with high level of abstraction, which are more generalized & still on topic, - software layers - contrary to many opinions, lower software layers form building blocks that are used in constructing software on higher layers. it's not the same as higher levels of abstraction on higher software layers. for example: computer game is not abstraction of operating system's kernel, game just uses kernel as a part. i can see that implementing computer system for one game only is concretization of machine, not abstracting use of computer system kernel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.180.202.14 (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)