Intel x86 considered harmful – survey of attacks against x86 over last 10 years

(blog.invisiblethings.org)

276 points chei0aiV | 1 comments | 27 Oct 15 14:51 UTC | HN request time: 0.208s | source

Show context

n0us ◴[27 Oct 15 15:13 UTC] No.10458463[source]▶

I really could do without "considered harmful" titles. x86 has been one of the most influential technologies of all time and a clickbait title doesn't do it justice imo.

replies(7): >>10458515 #>>10458617 #>>10458692 #>>10458787 #>>10458861 #>>10459018 #>>10459478 #

tormeh ◴[27 Oct 15 16:00 UTC] No.10458861[source]▶

>>10458463 #

"Considered Harmful" is a signifies that the text will be forceful and opinionated. I have nothing against balance and thoroughness, but many authors confuse those qualities with mealy-mouthedness and passive-aggressiveness. When I see "Considered Harmful" I know that the text will have a conclusion that isn't basically "I see some pro's and con's but I don't know guys, maybe more research is needed?".

Yes, "Considered Harmful" articles may be a little tactless and imbalanced, but they are usually also concise, honest, informative and funny. Those qualities are important to me.

replies(2): >>10459518 #>>10460409 #

1. bitwize ◴[27 Oct 15 19:19 UTC] No.10460409[source]▶

>>10458861 #

"Considered harmful" is like a Betteridge-baiting headline. It is important to remember that in the original article, "GO TO considered harmful", Dijkstra a) didn't choose the title; and b) was wrong about GO TO; it is tremendously useful under the right circumstances with no real substitute (except maybe for TCO). Yet how many times is "don't use goto" cited as an iron rule of programming?

So when I see "considered harmful" I've got my eye open for a potential thought-stopper, whether deliberately created or not.

↑