Hacker News Reader

> Imagine Linux kernel written in OOP way with design patterns and SOLID principles.

Doesn't sound that terrible to me.

Just out of interest, do you think `*(int*)(0x12345678) = 0;` is the best way to do memory-mapped IO? That's least abstracted.

View on HN

Have you ever written low level code? There's constant hardcoded addresses you have to deal with which are in the spec. You can't really do BIOS, UEFI, Bootloder, Systems programming, ... without it. You wouldn't do a "magic number" and would make it a macro. But *SCREENBUFFER = 0;

Yes, my point being that the macro in this case is an "abstraction", and we were discussing GP's claim "all abstractions bad" (i.e., to quote them, low level code should be "as least abstracted as possible"). Was it really not clear what I meant?

I've actually encountered seasoned embedded devs advocating using the magic number in this very case. Never really understood why. It was some combination of "abstractions bad" and "I want to be able to check all adresses against my printed dead-tree documents while debugging "...

Of course noone really believes "all abstractions bad", but I wonder why some people still claim that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com