5 ms·
The letter isn't coherent, and I think people are reacting to that. The thesis of the letter is that "POSIX is the reason your code has annoying low-level plumb
by rcme 4y ago
The letter isn't coherent, and I think people are reacting to that. The thesis of the letter is that "POSIX is the reason your code has annoying low-level plumbing and knobs needing attention," but doesn't explain how removing POSIX will help with that stuff. E.g. "new schedulers have to be built to handle the fact that memory is not all one thing." What does that even mean? Maybe he has a vision in his head, but it's not well articulated.
Also, the letter ends with this:
> If we are to write programs for such machines, it is imperative to get the Posix elephant off our necks and create systems that express in software the richness of modern hardware.
But such a system could still have annoying low-level knobs that need turning.
- justin66 4y ago> The letter isn't coherent, and I think people are reacting to that. I don't agree about the quality of the article, but it's the "hate" (your word) I was reacting to when I made my comment. Some of the reactions here are genuinely over the top. Add in the fact that the author of the ACM piece knows the POSIX subject matter a lot better than the people commenting, and it's just... classic late stage hn, I guess.
- rcme 4y agoI’m sure he does know POSIX better than most, but that doesn’t mean we should laud any drivel he produces. I think people are reacting to the provocative idea combined with lack of substance in the response. But the letter itself was probably an off-the-cuff remark and wasn’t intended to be consumed and debated analytically.