3 ms·

it seems all right to me. why do we force new users of our language to learn an entirely redundant set of glyphs?

• AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  If you eliminate all the redundancy, you binary encode it and then LZW compress it. Nobody wants to read that. More seriously, some redundancy helps with some data corruption. We don't need capital letters; we could let the punctuation show us where the sentence ends. On the other hand, we don't need the punctuation, either; we could let the capital letters show us where the next sentence starts. But having both lets us figure out things like "did the author insert a period there as a typo, or is that really the end of the sentence?"
• entropy47 4y ago
  I found this much harder to read than the average blog post (the "I mean" was where I realized I was in for a stream-of-consciousness post). You can get away without paragraphs too, but I don't think "you can parse a language without it" makes a thing redundant. I get it for comments or social media statuses, but if you're writing long form text you want somebody over 30 to read, reaching over to the shift key is probably worth it. This was a good read but it was annoying, like a nice book transcribed into Comic Sans.
  • roxgib 4y ago
    Agreed, it's well established that deviating for the normal rules of grammar makes writing harder to read. Breaking it in a deliberate fashion can work, but I don't think this is that. A lot of language is technically redundant but we do it because it aids in comprehension and readability.
• kerpotgh 4y ago
  [dead]