4 ms·

As an aside -- I have always found this type of sentence formulation, common with software engineers, so mystifying. It would be just as easy to understand wit

by chavesn 12y ago

As an aside -- I have always found this type of sentence formulation, common with software engineers, so mystifying. It would be just as easy to understand without the sentence variables -- it doesn't add clarity but it does add length. The alternative: > Once in our CS department (not CMU), we had given PhD acceptance to a wrong student, since he carried the same name+surname with the candidate we intended to admit. > Instead of rescinding the acceptance, we let both join. It turned out that the candidate we admitted by mistake performed much better than the other. :-)

shrig94 12y ago
In support of the variables, the comments seem to leverage Student1 and Student2 to describe the students the commenters are referring too, which is a lot easier than having to reexplain who you're referring to. (edit: DRY principle)
kszx 12y ago
My personal impression: Formulation 1 (with variables, short and concise sentences): easy to understand. Formulation 2 (without variables, long sentence): difficult to understand. ==> I prefer Formulation 1.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 12y ago
It's a style you also see quite frequently in legal documents where you first introduce the parties, give them a shorthand name and then use that name consistently throughout the document. I personally prefer that style over endless repetition of a description (with possible inconsistencies between the repetitions).
qnaal 12y ago
One doesn't always know whether the structure of the prose they are about to produce will permit discernment of its subjects by context and description alone. That is to say, in informal communications, an intuitive notation such as "[class][index]" can easily map between an abstract thought and its textual representation, without a critical re-reading on the part of the author to ensure the subjects are properly differentiated, potentially followed by subtle sentence refactoring.

by chavesn 12y ago

shrig94 12y ago

In support of the variables, the comments seem to leverage Student1 and Student2 to describe the students the commenters are referring too, which is a lot easier than having to reexplain who you're referring to. (edit: DRY principle)

kszx 12y ago

My personal impression: Formulation 1 (with variables, short and concise sentences): easy to understand. Formulation 2 (without variables, long sentence): difficult to understand. ==> I prefer Formulation 1.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

jacquesm 12y ago

It's a style you also see quite frequently in legal documents where you first introduce the parties, give them a shorthand name and then use that name consistently throughout the document. I personally prefer that style over endless repetition of a description (with possible inconsistencies between the repetitions).

qnaal 12y ago

One doesn't always know whether the structure of the prose they are about to produce will permit discernment of its subjects by context and description alone. That is to say, in informal communications, an intuitive notation such as "[class][index]" can easily map between an abstract thought and its textual representation, without a critical re-reading on the part of the author to ensure the subjects are properly differentiated, potentially followed by subtle sentence refactoring.