Hi! article author here, I can respond to a few questions. I didn't know about musl by then and it could definitely have oriented my choices differently. Howev

Hi! article author here, I can respond to a few questions. I didn't know about musl by then and it could definitely have oriented my choices differently. However after I started to use macro-based syscalls, I found there were very convenient benefits in not having to compile a libc for some cases. Not only static functions are optimized away when not used, but in addition you can use any toolchain, you don't have to fiddle with wrappers for dietlibc/uclibc nor include them with your toolchain. For regular sized projects I would encourage anyone to use musl of course. But for tiny stuff like in the kernel that relies on a bare-metal compiler and a handful of syscalls and very limited stdlib functions, nolibc is convenient.