4 ms·

I think it's a part of a broader challenge. In writing circles, there's always advice not to use some specific list of words. The list varies. An example list f

I think it's a part of a broader challenge. In writing circles, there's always advice not to use some specific list of words. The list varies. An example list from a quick googling: - really, very - just - totally, completely, absolutely - thing - some - rather, quite, somewhat, somehow - ... Like all style advice, it's not really a "rule" to follow, but it's surprisingly difficult to avoid some of these words. I struggle with "really" and "just." It makes you work, but your language is better for it. I think many swear words fall into this category of words that are really easy to use. These lists always heavily feature strengthening modifiers, and swear words are often strengthening modifiers. Especially "fucking" which is just a really fucking versatile thing to use. I wouldn't say relying on these crutch words is a lack of knowledge or fluency, but maybe it's a lack of versatility and easy varied expressiveness. Relying on these crutch words makes it harder to be specific.

gen220 7y ago
At work, we have a trillion custom slack emojis, and one is a big X with the caption “no-just”, encouraging people to refrain using just in sentences like “you just need to set up the Kafka consumer”. Now that I’m writing this out, it sounds kinda dystopian , but I actually appreciate the doublethink. I believe that pruning “just” (and cousins like “really” “very”, “it” the direct object/noun, “something”) has increased the clarity of my writing. I think that these words actually do have a use, but only in long recurring interactions where it’s clear that you don’t use these words in everyday communication. Humans are language detectives, and will detect these changes in speech as a signal of emotion. When you’re sincerely emotional about something, these normally vacuous words can be super meaningful. You can even use them in documentation (sparingly), to make a point. There’s a Tao Te Ching verse about how the wise practice “not-talking”. The implication is that normalizing silence makes words more meaningful: words only carry meaning because they contrast with silence, so if you’re talking all the time nobody will listen to you. It’s a good idea with many implications and applications, and I think it applies to these words. :)
- trophycase 6y ago
  But "you need to set up the Kafka consumer" and "you just need to set up the Kafka consumer" have different meanings. You're not just pruning, but changing the meaning. The latter implies there is only one thing you need to do, while the former is open ended, and could imply the beginning of a set of needs. "Just" can also add emphasis. "That's stupid" and "that's just stupid" have different nuance.
  - gen220 6y ago
    Yeah you’re right. Most sentences don’t survive subtracting the word “just” exactly as they were written. It’s more food for thought. I agree it changes the meaning, and I wouldn’t advocate a universal ban (your example is evidence for the second half of my original post, I think).
  - SamBam 6y ago
    Perhaps the intent is to not be belittling, or, relatedly, not imply that something should be trivial for everyone. If someone replied to me that I "just need to set up the Kafka consumer" I'd have no idea how to do that, and would potentially feel embarrassed about needing to ask for further information.

gen220 7y ago

At work, we have a trillion custom slack emojis, and one is a big X with the caption “no-just”, encouraging people to refrain using just in sentences like “you just need to set up the Kafka consumer”. Now that I’m writing this out, it sounds kinda dystopian , but I actually appreciate the doublethink. I believe that pruning “just” (and cousins like “really” “very”, “it” the direct object/noun, “something”) has increased the clarity of my writing. I think that these words actually do have a use, but only in long recurring interactions where it’s clear that you don’t use these words in everyday communication. Humans are language detectives, and will detect these changes in speech as a signal of emotion. When you’re sincerely emotional about something, these normally vacuous words can be super meaningful. You can even use them in documentation (sparingly), to make a point. There’s a Tao Te Ching verse about how the wise practice “not-talking”. The implication is that normalizing silence makes words more meaningful: words only carry meaning because they contrast with silence, so if you’re talking all the time nobody will listen to you. It’s a good idea with many implications and applications, and I think it applies to these words. :)

trophycase 6y ago
But "you need to set up the Kafka consumer" and "you just need to set up the Kafka consumer" have different meanings. You're not just pruning, but changing the meaning. The latter implies there is only one thing you need to do, while the former is open ended, and could imply the beginning of a set of needs. "Just" can also add emphasis. "That's stupid" and "that's just stupid" have different nuance.
- gen220 6y ago
  Yeah you’re right. Most sentences don’t survive subtracting the word “just” exactly as they were written. It’s more food for thought. I agree it changes the meaning, and I wouldn’t advocate a universal ban (your example is evidence for the second half of my original post, I think).
- SamBam 6y ago
  Perhaps the intent is to not be belittling, or, relatedly, not imply that something should be trivial for everyone. If someone replied to me that I "just need to set up the Kafka consumer" I'd have no idea how to do that, and would potentially feel embarrassed about needing to ask for further information.