Go tried to break the rules and call macOS syscalls directly (like they do on Linux, because Go is a massively NIH language so they don't use libc where they can get away with it) and it bit them hard when an OS update broke all Go apps.
If Apple broke every Go program, then that's on Apple. Why are people blaming the victim? Go didn't do anything wrong.
Apple came back in the late nineties, in part, because they copied and pasted the magic numbers from the Bell System Five codebase, e.g. 1 for exit(), etc. Capitalizing on UNIX popularity helped Apple succeed. So they shouldn't treat Bell Labs technologies like it's their own implementation detail.
For example, Microsoft has the right to break NTDLL because they invented it, and never intended for it to be used directly by app developers. Windows was designed from its beginning to have dynamic system interfaces too. In the UNIX community, DSOs have always been extremely controversial, since they raise legal questions compared to SYSCALL and INT trapping, and they violate the ability of a program to assume complete control of the full virtual address space.
If Apple devs are reading, then please, we love your products, but we don't love DSOs. Please grant us the freedom to choose. Please keep SYSCALL stable. It'd also be great if you didn't add special-cased code to XNU that blocks open source Actually Portable Executables, like you did with UPX. Email me (the author) your feedback instead. I'll do anything to help, short of adopting a second WIN32 linkage model.
Are you familiar with Apple's concept of "private API"? Apple considers the list of exported symbols from a dynamic library to not be a boundary (in fact, they have a linker that ignores that and links against a predefined list of symbols regardless of what a binary exports), much less the kernel syscall interface. In fact, Apple silicon requires that your program is loaded by dyld as far as I can tell.
While I wan't around in the nineties, I'm curious how syscall numbering helped Apple's success. I'm sure System-V ABI when they switched to 64-bit Intel was probably a nice bonus, but system call numbers?
