2 ms·
IMO that would be a mistake because Simplified Technical English cannot properly represent business domains specifically when talking about using specific conce
by gls2ro 1mo ago
IMO that would be a mistake because Simplified Technical English cannot properly represent business domains specifically when talking about using specific concepts from those domains. It can explain those concepts but I think it will fail short or naming them.
So I think making that default as it is will create bugs. I ran an experiment here https://allaboutcoding.ghinda.com/explain-to-me-in-simple-technical-english https://allaboutcoding.ghinda.com/explain-to-me-in-simple-te... (of course it is fit to my usage) see section "What about understanding and facts" and ASD-STE100 fails, in my experiment, to return facts as I have defined them in those cases compared with no instruction or just saying "use Simple Technical English".
- farbklang 1mo agoWell that is why it is technical English. I wouldn't use it to explain business concepts, but it is perfect for explaining logical flows and how something works.
- gls2ro 1mo agoI was replying to someone saying to make this the default. While this is good for _technical english_ it is not a good default as a good default should work for most of the people in most of the cases. IMHO the case for explaining logical flows and how someting works is just one case even when using Claude Code in programming so a default will not make sense.
- NL807 1mo ago>I was replying to someone saying to make this the default. Fair criticism and I see your point. Perhaps making this as one of the optional defaults writing styles (amongst others) would be better.