4 ms·
That creates bland writing and the process of correcting every little deviation is so pedantic that it provides a strong incentive to stop writing. Both of thes
by hluska 11y ago
That creates bland writing and the process of correcting every little deviation is so pedantic that it provides a strong incentive to stop writing. Both of these problems result in a world where we learn less, grow less, and take fewer risks with our writing.
What is wrong with truly being charitable, assuming the absolute best intentions and giving writers the license to deviate a little to let them make a point?
- jsprogrammer 11y agoNothing is wrong with being charitable. Some statements are just wrong, or there is no assumption of best intentions that can satisfy the claims being made. What is wrong with not writing blatantly false statements or calling out wrong statements for being wrong (or, asking for a correction)? There is a reason compilers cannot take arbitrary text and produce the program you are 'actually' thinking of.
- khedoros 11y ago"Perfect is the enemy of good", perfection isn't always necessary for effective communication, and the perceived intent of the writer usually matters more. If you think the writer is trying to mislead someone, or they said something that you think will lead to misunderstandings of something important, then call them out or ask for a correction. I took the post as being more about "the writer didn't cover all the edge cases" than about "the writer wrote something intentionally false/wrong/misleading".
- hluska 11y agoVery nicely written!! :)
- jsprogrammer 11y agoTo be clear, I have not read the original post; I was only responding to WalterBright's post. We do get to skip over words and make up our own meanings of them, anyway. :)