17 ms·
Tangent: would technical writers please stop using the phrasing “is X times smaller” when “is one Xth the size” is more accurate? I had to read the reference to
by mikece 6y ago
Tangent: would technical writers please stop using the phrasing “is X times smaller” when “is one Xth the size” is more accurate? I had to read the reference to “Crystal’s binary size is 5 times smaller than Go’s” twice to realize it was 0.2x and not 5x.
- jiofih 6y agoI don’t get it. “5x smaller” and “0.2x the size” are the same. Can you explain then what do you expect to be the meaning of “two times smaller”?
- mikece 6y agoClarity of language for one thing, but also that "times" is indicative of multiplication so "five times" anything has to be bigger[1]. One fifth is far clearer as there's no way to interpret that other than being a part of the size of the reference, ergo, smaller. Is it impossible to understand? No, but it's poor style for technical writing. [1] I'm ignoring the case of decimal math since the reference in this case is always the whole integer 1.
- zanellato19 6y agoI think this takes the cake for the most pedantic HN comment I have ever read.
- jiofih 6y agoI don’t know under which rock you’ve been hiding but “x times faster/smaller” has been in common use for decades, including technical writing. Everyone understands it as 1/X, there is absolutely no confusion.
- omaranto 6y agoIf a thing has size x it has smallness 1/x (so the bigger the thing, the less smallness it has). When you say one thing is 5x smaller than another, it means the smallness of the first is 5 times the smallness of the second. :P