3 ms·

I agree with your first premise - Paul Graham's writing is enjoyable because it is terse. I can't support your second premise. Just because Steve Yeggi's writ

I agree with your first premise - Paul Graham's writing is enjoyable because it is terse. I can't support your second premise. Just because Steve Yeggi's writing is long, doesn't mean it's full of fluff. It may not be as compact as a PG essay, but Steve Yeggi is also expressing very complex ideas and I think he uses just as many words as he needs to, to get the whole point across.

gnaritas 19y ago
But it is full of fluff, metaphor after metaphor or personal example after personal example repeatedly hammering at a point he could have gotten across much simpler if he tried. I'm usually so bored a quarter the way through I start skimming looking for some point worth reading. Paul's writing on the other hand is of a much higher quality, doesn't assume the reader is so dense that he needs to keep hammering on the point, and recognizes that I don't care about fluff, but look for the meat. Yeggi thinks every though he has is worth reading, Paul knows better.