5 ms·

> If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. Shouldn't that just be: > If it is possible to cut a word out, cut it out.

• nequo 4y ago
  The word "always" may have lost its significance to us. Maybe it carried more meaning to writers who were only familiar with natural languages, not programming languages.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• canjobear 4y ago
  First rule of style guides: they always break their own rules.
• scubbo 4y ago
  That was my first thought - well, actually it was "If it is possible to cut a word, do so" ;)
• buttspelunker 4y ago
  "Omit needless words", from Strunk & White.
  • msla 4y ago
    > "Omit needless words", from Strunk & White. Which is better phrased "Omit!" After all, are you going to omit essential words? No! And are you going to omit something other than words, like kumquats, maybe? No!
    • Melatonic 4y ago
      Or perhaps the self referential comedic version: Omit? Omit!
• sys32768 4y ago
  >word out, cut it out. That rendering sounds like he's saying, "Hey, cut it out!" In other words, stop: don't do it! ;)
• HL33tibCe7 4y ago
  Or > If possible, cut words out
• blowski 4y ago
  I’ve seen a version of this list with “Never use a short word where a diminuitive one will suffice”.
• lucideer 4y ago
  I dunno, the second one seems pretty barbarous to me...
• Melatonic 4y ago
  If you are going to take it that far then it could simply read: If it is possible to cut a word out, cut it. Or perhaps: Is it possible to cut out a word? Cut.