3 ms·

The best I can say if I get an article titled "Wear leveling considered harmful" is say "no, it's not". "Considered harmful" is appropriate for a PSA that the

by remram 4y ago

The best I can say if I get an article titled "Wear leveling considered harmful" is say "no, it's not". "Considered harmful" is appropriate for a PSA that the whole community considers something to be harmful. It's terrible for an essay trying to argue that it should be avoided even though that is not the community standard (yet). The title should be "Why wear leveling is harmful", "A case against wear leveling", or something similar. I don't understand why people keep using those stupid titles.

ranger_danger 4y ago
You don't understand why clickbait is clickbait?
bitwize 4y ago
"Considered harmful" is shorthand for "Why I consider this harmful". Has been since the first one, "GO TO Considered Harmful" by Dijkstra, which came out in a time when everybody used GOTO or its equivalent.
- afiori 4y ago
  Dijkstra's title was a shorthand for "I believe you and everybody else should consider this harmful"; appropriate for the strong claim that GOTO was bad and was making programming as a whole worse. Using "X considered harmful" in place of "Y is better than X" is just capitalizing on the meme.
- remram 4y ago
  Even that has internal logic. "GOTO is considered harmful in the projects that I run, so we don't use it there, and this is why". If an SSD manufacturer explained that they consider the feature harmful, and they are no longer including it in products, that's something. Here it's a consumer expressing that they think they don't like the feature and think they would like someone to make products a different way. Completely different.
eternityforest 4y ago
If they are proposing something else that does what wear levelling does, it should be "Future replacements for SSD wear levelling" or "Next generation wear levelling for solid state storage", if they are in fact just suggesting we move the leveling to the host. Obviously we need some leveling somewhere or there's gonna be problems when someone uses an overwritable file....

by remram 4y ago

ranger_danger 4y ago

You don't understand why clickbait is clickbait?

bitwize 4y ago

"Considered harmful" is shorthand for "Why I consider this harmful". Has been since the first one, "GO TO Considered Harmful" by Dijkstra, which came out in a time when everybody used GOTO or its equivalent.

afiori 4y ago
Dijkstra's title was a shorthand for "I believe you and everybody else should consider this harmful"; appropriate for the strong claim that GOTO was bad and was making programming as a whole worse. Using "X considered harmful" in place of "Y is better than X" is just capitalizing on the meme.
remram 4y ago
Even that has internal logic. "GOTO is considered harmful in the projects that I run, so we don't use it there, and this is why". If an SSD manufacturer explained that they consider the feature harmful, and they are no longer including it in products, that's something. Here it's a consumer expressing that they think they don't like the feature and think they would like someone to make products a different way. Completely different.

eternityforest 4y ago

If they are proposing something else that does what wear levelling does, it should be "Future replacements for SSD wear levelling" or "Next generation wear levelling for solid state storage", if they are in fact just suggesting we move the leveling to the host. Obviously we need some leveling somewhere or there's gonna be problems when someone uses an overwritable file....