3 ms·

Yes, but as you said in your last paragraph, the main issue is that the sentence is very misleading. I don't know if the author knew what they were talking abou

Yes, but as you said in your last paragraph, the main issue is that the sentence is very misleading. I don't know if the author knew what they were talking about, but taken at face value, it does sound very wrong.

danso 8y ago
The sentence is more correct than it is wrong. Here it is with the context of its paragraph: > He is known for introducing the notion of “literate programming,” emphasizing the importance of writing code that is readable by humans as well as computers — a notion that nowadays seems almost twee. Dr. Knuth has gone so far as to argue that some computer programs are, like Elizabeth Bishop’s poems and Philip Roth’s “American Pastoral,” works of literature worthy of a Pulitzer. Note this part specifically: > the notion of “literate programming,” emphasizing the importance...a notion that nowadays seems almost twee" "literate programming" is the notion emphasizing* the "importance" of writing code readable by humans. And this "notion" The word "which" would make it even clearer that the subject of the clause is "literate programming", but the sentence is still grammatically correct as is. Everyone thinks it's important for code to be readable, but Knuth is the one who is radical about how important it is -- to the point that he thinks programs should be "literature worthy of a Pulitzer". In any case, the NYT author is more accurate than the previous HN commenter, who seems to have jumped to a conclusion without knowing anything about the concept "literate programming", or how and why Knuth is known for it. The NYT author is not "basically just pulling this statement out of her behind to embellish Knuth's reputation", but it seems the commenter is not as familiar with Knuth and/or computer programming as he thinks he is.

3 ms·

Yes, but as you said in your last paragraph, the main issue is that the sentence is very misleading. I don't know if the author knew what they were talking abou

by giornogiovanna 8y ago

danso 8y ago
The sentence is more correct than it is wrong. Here it is with the context of its paragraph: > He is known for introducing the notion of “literate programming,” emphasizing the importance of writing code that is readable by humans as well as computers — a notion that nowadays seems almost twee. Dr. Knuth has gone so far as to argue that some computer programs are, like Elizabeth Bishop’s poems and Philip Roth’s “American Pastoral,” works of literature worthy of a Pulitzer. Note this part specifically: > the notion of “literate programming,” emphasizing the importance...a notion that nowadays seems almost twee" "literate programming" is the notion emphasizing* the "importance" of writing code readable by humans. And this "notion" The word "which" would make it even clearer that the subject of the clause is "literate programming", but the sentence is still grammatically correct as is. Everyone thinks it's important for code to be readable, but Knuth is the one who is radical about how important it is -- to the point that he thinks programs should be "literature worthy of a Pulitzer". In any case, the NYT author is more accurate than the previous HN commenter, who seems to have jumped to a conclusion without knowing anything about the concept "literate programming", or how and why Knuth is known for it. The NYT author is not "basically just pulling this statement out of her behind to embellish Knuth's reputation", but it seems the commenter is not as familiar with Knuth and/or computer programming as he thinks he is.