Well, at least 70% of the HN crowd has been misunderstanding it. The article has an anecdote in it where the "better" guy has grandiose ideas about wanting to

Well, at least 70% of the HN crowd has been misunderstanding it. The article has an anecdote in it where the "better" guy has grandiose ideas about wanting to make a perfect system that always does the right thing, even at a huge increase in implementation complexity. In that specific case, not having to restart system calls after an interrupt. I've always thought the "worse" guy made the right choice by shifting the complexity out of the core, because we should deal with each problem in the place where it's most natural. There's nothing wrong with requiring users to make and use (or only use) a wrapper that deals with that complexity in one specific way that is right in the given situation.