I assumed so, but then why all the comparisons to file systems that are designed to run on top of a flash translation layer? I would have expected something in big bold letters at the top saying this is designed to run without an FTL, whereas the other filesystems rely on one to wear level. For example, this is right at the top:
"Writing to flash is destructive. If a filesystem repeatedly writes to the same block, eventually that block will wear out. Filesystems that don't take wear into account can easily burn through blocks used to store frequently updated metadata and cause a device's early death."
This isn't true. It's only true for filesystems that aren't running on a regular block storage device. It's even more egregious to use the word block because almost everyone assumes that means a logical block. They must be using it to mean a NAND page, which has entirely different behavior and does wear out.
Honestly most file systems haven't been designed to run on an FTLs (except maybe UBIFS). Most filesystems have been designed to run on magnetic disk drives, where wear is a non-issue and data locality is more important.
As the world transitions to flash, FTLs were created to translate flash in a way that doesn't require rewriting the filesystem. But this adds a layer of abstraction that can make the resulting storage stack more costly than is necessary.
Why the comparison to traditional, magnetic disk based filesystems? Because a lot people are putting them on raw flash and expecting them to work (mostly FAT in the MCU space). It's important to inform their perspective that traditional storage practices don't work on raw flash.
As for everyone assuming block == logical block, I don't think that's true. It's a pretty overused term, in NOR/NAND datasheets it simply describes the physical geometry of the raw flash. Though even there it is inconsistent.
The domain comes with it's own shenanigans, and it's impractical to list all of them. When working with microcontrollers no-one should expect to have FTL.
The word "block" is extremely generic and the semantics and sizes of "blocks" vary widely across different storage technologies, platforms and specific parts.
It's like saying "packet" -- there are a gazillion packet types, sizes and formats, and when I use the word "packet" I don't expect everyone to assume I'm just talking about ethernet framing, even though that's a really popular packet format.
"Writing to flash is destructive. If a filesystem repeatedly writes to the same block, eventually that block will wear out. Filesystems that don't take wear into account can easily burn through blocks used to store frequently updated metadata and cause a device's early death."
This isn't true. It's only true for filesystems that aren't running on a regular block storage device. It's even more egregious to use the word block because almost everyone assumes that means a logical block. They must be using it to mean a NAND page, which has entirely different behavior and does wear out.