5 ms·

Any activity has boring aspects. Using the tool to automate such things should be encouraged. Obviously, linters can produce many false positives--they should

by d0mine 4y ago

Any activity has boring aspects. Using the tool to automate such things should be encouraged. Obviously, linters can produce many false positives--they shouldn't be used blindly.

ComputerGuru 4y ago
I can see where you’re coming from but I don’t believe something like Vale will - in practice, not in theory - actually do that. You would need a general purpose AI to pull that off, otherwise domain-specific, bespoke, one-off tools (eg to transform an API into a documentation template, to make skeleton release notes out of git/GitHub/Jira/whatever records, etc) combined with a two-hour crash course on effective writing are probably the way to go. But obviously enough people disagree that this is a thing.. although that could be said for quite a number of “technical progress” milestones we currently celebrate.
vorpalhex 4y ago
Sometimes tools that seem to help us make us more reckless. I wonder if tools like grammarly have this problem..
rojobuffalo 4y ago
boredom is useful to a writer. a lot of my favorite writers have mentioned writing all first drafts with pen and paper. what happens in your brain when you're writing is important, even when it feels boring, slow, or repetitive. who has a better sense of where my attention should be, me or a tool? imo better writing is the product of practice, reading, and better thinking. all of that to say, if you have a pre-publishing step where you need to check spelling, grammar, capitalization, punctuation, etc. a linter might fit in at that step. but i really don't think a tool is better than your own reading or giving it to an editor you trust.
- Jolter 4y ago
  Nice post contents, but is your shift key broken or something?
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    you volunteering to do our mechanical editing now?
- BeFlatXIII 4y ago
  In addition to the false positives, automated linters pick up on the little errors that blow right past manual review. It's no substitute for human editing for content, but it is better for nitpicking and cleanup.

by d0mine 4y ago

Any activity has boring aspects. Using the tool to automate such things should be encouraged. Obviously, linters can produce many false positives--they shouldn't be used blindly.

ComputerGuru 4y ago

I can see where you’re coming from but I don’t believe something like Vale will - in practice, not in theory - actually do that. You would need a general purpose AI to pull that off, otherwise domain-specific, bespoke, one-off tools (eg to transform an API into a documentation template, to make skeleton release notes out of git/GitHub/Jira/whatever records, etc) combined with a two-hour crash course on effective writing are probably the way to go. But obviously enough people disagree that this is a thing.. although that could be said for quite a number of “technical progress” milestones we currently celebrate.

vorpalhex 4y ago

Sometimes tools that seem to help us make us more reckless. I wonder if tools like grammarly have this problem..

rojobuffalo 4y ago

boredom is useful to a writer. a lot of my favorite writers have mentioned writing all first drafts with pen and paper. what happens in your brain when you're writing is important, even when it feels boring, slow, or repetitive. who has a better sense of where my attention should be, me or a tool? imo better writing is the product of practice, reading, and better thinking. all of that to say, if you have a pre-publishing step where you need to check spelling, grammar, capitalization, punctuation, etc. a linter might fit in at that step. but i really don't think a tool is better than your own reading or giving it to an editor you trust.

Jolter 4y ago
Nice post contents, but is your shift key broken or something?
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  you volunteering to do our mechanical editing now?
BeFlatXIII 4y ago
In addition to the false positives, automated linters pick up on the little errors that blow right past manual review. It's no substitute for human editing for content, but it is better for nitpicking and cleanup.