←back to thread

520 points OlympicMarmoto | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
jnwatson ◴[] No.45067216[source]
I've written a lot of low level software, BSPs, and most of an OS, and the main reason to not write your own OS these days is silicon vendors. Back in the day, they would provide you a spec detailed enough that you could feasibly write your own drivers.

These days, you get a medium-level description and a Linux driver of questionable quality. Part of this is just laziness, but mostly this is a function of complexity. Modern hardware is just so complicated it would take a long time to completely document, and even longer to write a driver for.

replies(13): >>45067491 #>>45069282 #>>45069287 #>>45069349 #>>45069690 #>>45070345 #>>45071036 #>>45071086 #>>45072259 #>>45072391 #>>45073789 #>>45075476 #>>45081942 #
bbarnett ◴[] No.45069349[source]
Modern hardware is just so complicated it would take a long time to completely document, and even longer to write a driver for.

That's what's claimed. That's what people say, yet it's just an excuse. I've heard the same sort of excuse people have, after they write a massive codebase, then say "Oops, sorry, didn't get around to documenting it".

And no, hardware is not more difficult than software to document.

If the system is complex, there's more need to document, just as with a huge codebase. On their end, they have new employees to train up, and they have to manage testing. So any excuse that silicon vendors have to deal with such immense complexity? My violin plays for them.

replies(3): >>45069603 #>>45070341 #>>45073345 #
makeitdouble ◴[] No.45070341[source]
> "Oops, sorry, didn't get around to documenting it".

That's obviously the wrong message. They should say "Go ask the engineering VP to get us off any other projects for another cycle while we're writing 'satisfying' documentation".

Extensive documentation comes at a price few companies are willing to pay (and that's not just a matter of resources. Look at Apple's documentation)

replies(3): >>45071005 #>>45072212 #>>45072560 #
throwaway2037 ◴[] No.45072212{3}[source]

    > Look at Apple's documentation
To clarify for me: Is this good or bad?
replies(1): >>45072300 #
1. simonw ◴[] No.45072300{4}[source]
It's bad. Apple's documentation is notoriously weak, despite them being one of the most well-resourced companies in the world.
replies(1): >>45073279 #
2. saagarjha ◴[] No.45073279[source]
Don't worry they're writing documentation now for AI agents
replies(1): >>45073867 #
3. A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 ◴[] No.45073867[source]
Honestly, this is by far the most amusing side effect of AI thus far -- management demanding better documentation to help AI digest it.