How to Write in Plain English - <AUTHOR> http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/how-to-write-in-plain-english.html <comment><USER2> Writing clearly is like playing Tetris. Sentences should be presented with clauses that drop down and slot together efficiently. At the earliest available opportunity you drop in a block that completes the line and points are won/made.

This can also make for rather dull writing and I appreciate the irony in this paragraph:

 _> However, at first you may still find yourself writing the odd long sentence, especially when trying to explain a complicated point. But most long sentences can be broken up in some way._

Here we see the Tetris player drop a sequence of blocks leaving a 3x1 gap down the left edge. Where are they going with this? More blocks stack up on the middle and right, there are "bubbles" in the pile that are covered by squares and there's still that annoying gap on the left holding them back from clearing. Time passes. The screen is now getting dangerously full.

Then they drop in a pair of 4x1 blocks that completes rows 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. The bubbles on rows 4 and 7 become exposed making a T shaped hole. The next block to fall is a T shape. The screen clears, the sentence's cognitive buffer is flushed, and we move on to the next point.

<comment><USER3> Don't make your readers hold parts of the sentence in their head. Reorder or split sentences until it can be avoided. In other words, use a _really_ small buffer.

"You must fill form 331 unless you are over 60 years old, in which case you must fill form 445."

"You must fill form 331. If you are over 60 years old, you must fill 445 instead."

"If you are over 60 years old, you must fill form 445. Otherwise, you must fill form 331."

You might have noticed that the last version is an if-else statement.

<comment><USER4> > Don't make your readers hold parts of the sentence in their head.

Funny to read this as I'm learning German! In German the main verb of a sentence has to be at the end depending on the context (e.g: if it is a question, or following some prepositions such as "dass").

Let's say we want to build a question, it will be constructed this way:

1\. question marker (such as "Was", "Wo", "Warum", etc)

2\. subject

3\. other details regarding the subject (adjectives and others)

4\. the verb, with correct grammatical form depending on the subject

Something I find quite frustrating is that I have to keep in mind everything about the subject during the entire duration of the sentence just to be able to use the verb correctly. So because of this I always try to keep the distance between a subject and the verb as short as possible when trying to speak German, which results in very terse sentences that looks similar to what you described.

My life partner speaks native German and doesn't even realize that she does this buffering.

<comment><USER5> A famously playful version of this is the first sentence of Kafka's Metamophorphosis. The reader has the concept of Gregor Samsa waking in his bed from uneasy dreams and then a monstrous vermin in their heads, and the verb they're definitely not expecting to link this subject and object is 'transformed into'...

It's a pain for the translator to pull off the same effect in most other languages.

<comment><USER6> That reminds me of this story:

 _An American woman visiting Berlin - intent on hearing Bismarck speak - obtained two tickets for the Reichstag visitors ' gallery and enlisted an interpreter to accompany her._

 _Soon after their arrival, Bismarck rose and began to speak. The interpreter, however, simply sat listening with intense concentration. The woman, anxious for him to begin translating, nudged and budged him, to no avail._

 _Finally, unable to control herself any longer, the woman burst out: "What is he saying!?" "Patience, madam," the interpreter replied. "I am waiting for the verb."_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The article doesn't mention the way that word placement changes the meaning of sentences. From a video I recently saw but can't recall, consider these sentences:

\- Although John is a nice guy, he beats his dog.

\- Although John beats his dog, he's a nice guy.

\- John is a nice guy, but he beats his dog.

\- John beats his dog, but he's a nice guy.

These are all plain English sentences, but will be interpreted quite differently. For the moment, try to set aside the moral judgement on dog beating and consider what the author's opinion of John is in each case.

For example, readers tend to latch onto the last part of a sentence. So putting the nice guy part last tends to support John. Whereas putting the dog beating last tends to undermine John.

Same facts, almost the same words, but different messages.

<comment><USER8> I'm struggling to read those as being different. UK English reader.

<comment><USER9> Native English UK Reader here and whilst the words have essentially the same meaning, I would definitely have a different take away from these two:

\- John is a nice guy, but he beats his dog.

\- John beats his dog, but he's a nice guy.

For me, the difference is that the second one carries more of an implication that the speaker doesn't consider dog beating all that problematic since even though John does it, he's still a nice guy. Also, to me, the first one is more judgemental towards John than the second.

<comment><USER10> This is even summed up in a bit of wisdom: in a sentence containing the word "but", you may safely ignore everything which comes before that word.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Heres a great list from GOV.UK of the kind of words to avoid when using Plain English:

[https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk- sty...](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-style#words- to-avoid)

<comment><USER12> Love it. Check out "Writing for GOV.UK"[0] for more guidance.

Among interesting things to note that they strongly discourage FAQs ("if you write content by starting with user needs, you will not need to use FAQs … they are usually not frequently asked questions by the public, but important information dumped by the content editor"). The concept of FAQ has long been a pet peeve of mine, although I do believe the "question and answer" format has some merit.

[0] [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for- gov-u...](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-uk)

<comment><USER13> A useful FAQ list _must_ consist of questions that are actually often asked.

They represent discovered problems in the text the author didn't foresee.

<comment><USER12> > They represent discovered problems in the text the author didn't foresee.

Indeed. If certain questions are asked frequently, likely the information is not presented with audience's actual needs in mind. Content should be updated, possibly rewritten. Putting up a FAQ shows content editor washing their hands of that responsibility.

I also find it a little rude, like "Welcome to the group of people who, despite our best efforts, didn't manage to understand what we wrote! Here are some questions you lot keep asking…" (Of course, usually it's not that, but rather a half-hearted attempt to be helpful and/or reduce the amount of people getting in touch with questions.)

<comment><USER14> Of course, FAQs originated in places like mailing lists and usenet groups, where it's arguably a good fit, precisely because there _is_ no real standing body of text. The trouble is that it then got shoe-horned into being used on websites.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'd guess (almost) everyone wishes everyone else wrote in plain language. But there's potentially a more fundamental reason people don't. bambax in another comment pointed out the power of ambiguity, and that's one of the reasons especially in legal / government, but there's another.

Language, specifically jargon, is an expression of culture. It's an expression of power, education, experience, or lack thereof. It's a quick way to gauge if someone is "like you" or not. If they have the same experience, and especially in professional settings, a quick (yet often incorrect) measure of competence.

Take everyone's favorite, "Business English":

You don't try again, you _iterate_. You don't take another call, you _jump_ or _hop_ to another call. You _sync_ , and you _align_. Against the article's recommendation, you nominalize all day, by "bringing projects to completion" and "moving forward with the engagement".

Jargon and style, while often utter bullshit, is a way of measuring people quickly. I once had someone ask me, "would you say you practice disruptive innovation methodology?" My answer to that question was a quick way to learn that unlike them, I did not have an MBA. Complexity is often synonymous with education.

> Jargon is a type of language that is only understood by a particular group > of people. You can use jargon when writing to people who will understand the > terms and phrases. It can be a useful form of shorthand. But try to avoid > using specialist jargon on the general public.

Unless your goal is to identify if someone is part of said particular group. And therefore in the vast majority of business and technical cases, Plain English -- at least jargon and nominalization -- unfortunately may close more doors than it opens.

<comment><USER3> There is a place and a time for culture. Your electric bill is not one of them.

I disagree with your last paragraph. Speaking clearly and decisively is a good thing, and people will usually appreciate it. People become famous for speaking clearly. I remember some general made the rounds for his plain, no- nonsense COVID-19 address. I wish I could find it again.

I can only think of this scene right now.

[https://youtu.be/Hhy7JUinlu0](https://youtu.be/Hhy7JUinlu0)

<comment><USER15> I'd say that actually is my point though. If you're a high-ranking official giving a speech, speaking the same language as the general population will make you well-received and well-understood by using the language of your constituents.

Speaking a language people _understand_ is decisively a good thing, and what people understand varies dramatically by situation. "Plain English" isn't always the answer. (Also hierarchy -- when you're on top, you get to set the tone.)

If you want to be part of a club, you need to sound like a member. Unless you own the club.

<comment><USER3> In the end, you have to adapt your speech to your audience. If you address the members of a club, you can speak their language. When the club is 300+ million strong, you might have to pick a broader tone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is good advice, but we should be wary of assuming that writing well is easy or a matter of following rules. Like most things worth doing, good writing requires that we practice it regularly and over a period of years, that we are exposed to good writing, and that we have access to competent feedback on our own writing.

Every decent writer I know has worked diligently at practice, usually for years. They're also omnivorous readers of good long-form writing. Finally, they seek and are grateful for the advice of a good editor.

Talent can help you advance in skill more quickly and perhaps reach a higher ultimate plateau, but it does little to replace the requirement for observation, practice and review. I've often thought that talent is indistinguishable from interest and passion---it's what gets you to do the work, not a replacement for it.

Some minor comments: "utilize" should be on the list of words to avoid. I have yet to encounter a use of that word that wouldn't be improved by replacing it with "use". In technical and scientific writing, passive voice can be valuable when the salient concern is not the actor, but the act and its consequences. "The sheep were administered methamphetamine one hour before being tased" focuses on the study, while "we gave the sheep meth and then we tased them" focusses on the scientists. The former is often better for this type of writing.

Note: the example is from one of my favourite studies. I wish I had heard about before I chose my thesis topic: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1553-2712...](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00708.x)

</comment><comment><USER17> Plain English has been a 'super power' for my report writing ever since it was drummed into me by a former CEO and MD at a finance and economic consultancy I worked at after University.

"Style toward Clarity and Grace" by Joseph M. Williams is, imho, the most thorough, yet comprehensible, guide to how to write in Plain English. It goes beyond short 'do this, don't do that' guides by explaining why, and how, English can be unclear with exercises to help transform your writing.

I can't stress enough that the ability to take both simple ideas, and complex ideas, and write both in a clear and compelling way that inspires action, will pay dividends over any career.

<comment><USER18> I wrote a memento / summary of the book, for anyone interested to discover it at a glance: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F8_p3bkzugTvkBd1Ja6bHLR2...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F8_p3bkzugTvkBd1Ja6bHLR2v_XXRWqtcq7jF2gu0EM/edit?usp=sharing)

<comment><USER17> Thank you for the link, this is a great resource you've put together! I'll be sure to share with some of my colleagues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> How to write rich text English:

1) The writer should make a conscious effort to keep his or her sentences as long as possible; just one word: the flow; some shorter sentences can be juxtaposed, periods replaced with comas or semicolons; the abundance of adjectives and adjective phrases never hurt --

2) The passive voice has to be chosen whenever possible; safer, less offensive, less responsible language is the enabler

3) Possessive determiners are to be preferred over personal pronouns, the passive voice is based on their liberal use

4) Thesaurus is considered by some to be essential for richer and more subtle communication, word substitutions refine the ideas being conveyed to the reader --

\-- the reader should be never explicitly solicited to do anything -- he or she should be free-willed into doing

6) Consideration of these dos and donts will likely unleash also the power of nominalization; nominalized verbs put action first

*) Bullet lists are the standard punctuation;

/s

</comment><comment><USER20> The campaign founder's biography[1] sounds interesting:

      Born in 1938, Chrissie largely missed out on formal education
      and could not read until she was in her mid‑teens.

And later:

      In 1994 Chrissie received an OBE and in 1995 she was awarded an
      honorary MA by Manchester University. Two years later, she received
      an honorary doctorate from the Open University. And in 1999 she
      officially joined the 'establishment' when she was listed in Who's Who.

[1] [http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/about-us/history/chrissie- mahe...](http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/about-us/history/chrissie-maher- obe.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> Personally, I'm happy with few tools that helps me write simpler (and hopefully better) English in my everyday usage.

## Long-Form

When I'm writing a long-form prose/essay, I start writing in Hemingway[1]. Edits and changes are done there to cater to my target audience. I'd then pick up the draft from there and go through Grammarly[2] as the final passage.

## Quick, Short Writings

For everyday use, I use iA / Writer[3]. I turn on all the Style Check filters to spot superfluous adjectives, weak verbs, and unwanted repetitions. I then, let it go through Grammarly (either with the App, or via browser Input fields).

This has helped me a lot. Growing up in a region with too many dialects per area, we used English as the one medium to communicate and educate, so I have the affinity to write more phrase-y, English-y. For quite a while, I have wanted to simply and write more clearer, simpler, and effective. These three tools have helped me a lot.

I have used Grammarly for almost a year, it says my vocabulary uses more unique words than 94% of Grammarly users. I'm not particularly proud of that. I want to simplify.

1\. [http://www.hemingwayapp.com](http://www.hemingwayapp.com)

2\. [https://grammarly.com](https://grammarly.com)

3\. [https://ia.net/writer](https://ia.net/writer)

</comment><comment><USER22> English vs. business English.

Pre-boarding is just boarding. Pre-booking is just booking.

Pre-prefixing everything. Sigh.

"Please revert" \- you mean 'reply', not 'return to a former state'.

"Ping me" \- ugh.

And my favourite.... "Learnings" \- you mean lessons. "What drivings have you been on?" ... "What journeys have you been on?"

<comment><USER23> "Ping me" really threw me for a loop the first time I heard a non-tech say it in an obvious non-tech way.

It literally has no other meaning outside of the ICMP echo utility; and the onomatopoeia of hitting glass.

How did it enter the Business world?

<comment><USER24> _Ping_ comes from _submarine sonar_ \- not the networking world.

Everyone of a certain age will have seen a half dozen submarine WW2 or Cold War films so regular people do have context.

And there's nothing wrong with it.

'Learnings' is an odd word but it actually makes sense because there are no perfect substitutes. 'Insights' isn't quite it.

<comment><USER25> A possible alternative to "learning" is "lesson". The problem with "lesson" is that it can have two meanings:

(a) a formal lecture given by a qualified person to a class;

(b) a fact that you learned from any person or even just a situation you were in.

"Lesson" in the sense (b) is a direct substitute for "a learning", but I have to admit a few people might sometimes interpret it as (a) and be confused. But it depends on the context - if a project report has a "lessons learnt" heading I don't think any reader is going to expect that means meaning (a).

<comment><USER24> Yeah - 'lessons learned' is idiomatically more tantamount to something 'learned after having made an error'.

I'll bet there are words in other languages that more perfectly capture the meaning of 'learnings' \- and admittedly it's a really ugly colloquialism ... but I would accept it out of a resigned pragmatism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I frequently receive letters from various European administrations, France, Germany, Poland, the UK.

Letters from HMRC are amazing. The first time it is really shocking, but after a while it's almost a pleasure to be asked to send money to the Queen!

But I think one of the reason bureaucracies prefer writing jargon and long winded sentences is to protect their influence and necessity. If you write in plain English (or French), then there's little room for interpretation. Good for the reader, but not for the sender. Ambiguity is power.

<comment><USER3> The ones from German bureaucrats are simply horrible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The Plain English Campaign is not a useful authority on English usage. They are a group of prigs and pedants who issue press releases about alleged errors by famous people in the hope they will receive coverage in the British press and bring in work for their consulting business.

I'm distressed to learn they now expound at book length and I'm surprised to see this garbage taken seriously by HN.

See, e.g. [http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002229.h...](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002229.html), [https://web.archive.org/web/20110510090548/http://oliverkamm...](https://web.archive.org/web/20110510090548/http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/03/plain_english_b.html).

<comment><USER16> One problem with plain writing using simple sentence structure, common words and conversational grammar is that it's _boring_. It has its place: technical writing where facts need to be presented completely and unambiguously as well as writing for non-native speakers are two examples. However, if your goal is to educate, entertain, convince, communicate with passion, or simply express yourself in a way that permits subtlety or complexity, then it's tremendously constraining---and even more boring to write than it is to read.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This article explains how, but it doesn't explain why: you should do this because it's an accessibility issue. NHS Digital came up with a good example of this problem: [https://digital.nhs.uk/blog/transformation-blog/2019/pee- and...](https://digital.nhs.uk/blog/transformation-blog/2019/pee-and-poo-and- the-language-of-health)

<comment> dan-robertson Saying the reason is "accessibility" suggests that it only helps people with poor literacy. There are two things to note:

1\. Most people writing content will assume that their readers are like themselves or their social circle and will therefore have good literacy skills. However the actual proportion of people with poor (or even just not high) literacy skills is much higher than you might estimate from your social circle.

2\. Improving clarity for people with poor literacy will also improve readability for people with good literacy.

<comment><USER29> > Government experts often say that because they're writing technical or > complex content for a specialist audience, they do not need to use plain > English. This is wrong.

> Research shows that higher literacy people prefer plain English because it > allows them to understand the information as quickly as possible.

> For example, research into use of specialist legal language in legal > documents found:

> 80% of people preferred sentences written in clear English - and the more > complex the issue, the greater that preference (for example, 97% preferred > 'among other things' over the Latin 'inter alia')

> the more educated the person and the more specialist their knowledge, the > greater their preference for plain English

> People understand complex specialist language, but do not want to read it if > there's an alternative. This is because people with the highest literacy > levels and the greatest expertise tend to have the most to read. They do not > have time to pore through reams of dry, complicated prose.

someone linked this above: [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content- design/writing-for-gov-u...](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content- design/writing-for-gov-uk)

<comment><USER30> This makes total sense to me. Simple language makes room for complex ideas.

<comment><USER31> > _This makes total sense to me. Simple language makes room for complex > ideas._

My takeaway is slightly different: simple words (familiar) are easier to digest than big words (unfamiliar) because familiar words will be parsed very quickly for most people than unfamiliar words.

I prefer to use the categorization of "familiar" vs "unfamiliar" because the categorization of a word as "big" or "simple" depends largely on the reading ability of the person making the assessment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Don't follow the 'active verbs' rule too much. There's a limit to it, especially when writing technical documents. If it sounds unnatural, or when you have an implied subject that's an important part of the thing you're trying to convey, just use passive voice.

<comment><USER33> Also Fear and Loathing of the English Passive [http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.pdf](http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> It is not only the sheer pleasure of reading language used to its utmost, an indulgence found in the enduring literary accomplishments of Shakespeare or Dickens but somewhat lacking in the trendier, reportorial style of a Hemingway (who, after a hundred years, it seems safe to say has not reached the same level of immortal acclaim), but also if I may venture, a particular suitability to the kind of digressive, meandering, rich and nuanced thought, a precious and valuable part of human intellect, a rich roast which loses much of its savor when cut into bite-sized chunks, which recommends, contra all the style advice of today's factory-line English departments, an appreciation and a space for the continuation of the English of Milton and Gibbons and Melville as against the simplified, utilitarian style recommended in the fine article.

<comment><USER35> That style has its uses for sure. For example if you want to impress people or signal belonging to certain groups. It's also risky to state something in a crystal clear way, because you can be disproved and your status is diminished. As long as you write in long sentences and a confusing academic style, you can feel safe in your lukewarm puddle and enjoy your high status and sneer at the plebs. It's a sign of insecurity and inferiority complex.

If you actually have substance to say and feel confident about it, then chunk it up. Clear writing needs courage and is a weapon in itself against the entrenched lazy elites. A slingshot of David against Goliath. While unclear writing is a middle finger towards the public.

Also, I disagree that Shakespeare is as obscure and hard to read as your comment would suggest. He is just from a different era but was quite a down- to-earth fellow, not some stuck-up obscurantist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is especially important when working at an international company with many non-native English speakers.

One of the software engineers (an English major) I worked with at a previous gig could not get his head around the idea of writing in plan English.

He would write English at such an elaborate level that when he announced his resignation to the company via email, most people did not understand from that email that he was resigning!

</comment><comment><USER37> From Stephen King's _On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft_ :

"If you want to be a writer, you must do two things above all others: read a lot and write a lot. There's no way around these two things that I'm aware of, no shortcut.

I'm a slow reader, but I usually get through seventy or eighty books a year, mostly fiction. I don't read in order to study the craft; I read because I like to read. It's what I do at night, kicked back in my blue chair. Similarly, I don't read fiction to study the art of fiction, but simply because I like stories. Yet there is a learning process going on. Every book you pick up has its own lesson or lessons, _and quite often the bad books have more to teach than the good ones_ "

Can't recommend enough this book. Peek inside the mind of the master of writing in Plain English and one of the greatest modern storytellers. For me one of the best non-fiction books out there. Wish more artists produced something like this.

</comment><comment><USER38> I'm curious. Is there a specific reason why the trend for our use of the English language went towards this direction, when in the past, a lot of the historical material I read seemed intentionally verbose?

Sure, it's all for ensuring we are understood better among ourselves, but I wonder if writing this way makes us cognitively simpler.

<comment><USER39> Plain English should not be confused with low literacy level. Plain English is a style that is hard to master. Only 12% of U.S. adults reach the highest PIAAC literacy proficiency levels.

"unnecessary verbosity" is just one way to express your position in the society. Wearing impractical clothes, complex etiquette, having pale skin and speaking in certain manner was something that requires either wealth or practise.

Today business jargon combined with clothes and behaviour still work today as signalling your identity. So is wearing hoodie and saying "bro" constantly. People learn to feel comfortable in the uniform and in the language they identify with.

<comment><USER40> It is also possible that certain styles of writing and clothing are felt by some to be more beautiful. It is not necessary to reduce every stylistic predilection to status or identity signalling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Am I the only one who finds The List of Words to Avoid rather depressing? I mean I get what they are trying to do: minimise the number of letters. Yet, language is also about variety and not being really, really dull. Perhaps also about not treating your readers like idiots? Most of those slightly longer words look like perfectly legitimate alternatives in that regard.

<comment><USER25> It would be depressing if they were suggesting this style of language for literature, but they are absolutely not suggesting that. They are suggesting it for bureaucratic situations, like a utility company sending a bill or a goverrment body issuing notes about how to fill in a driving licence application form. A utility bill is never going to be a thrill to read, so if using simpler language means that some recipients understand they're exempt from a charge when they wouldn't have realised otherwise, or are simply able to read it a bit faster, then that's a clear win.

Frankly, it's more important to maximise the number of people that understand government advice than it is to maximise your enjoyment of application forms.

The advice is not even necessarily for situations that are partway between factual and pleasure, like a blog post or your example of a news article (or a HN comment!). In those cases it could still be helpful to bear the advice in mind, but without taking it too seriously.

</comment></comment><comment> GuB-42 Something not written there: don't use acronyms

Acronyms are a plague, especially in technical documents. These documents may include a glossary, which it better than nothing, but if an acronym is only used once or twice in a document, why not use the full name instead?

Here is a couple of anecdotes:

\- I once overheard a heated argument between a project manager and some over guy who criticized his work. Turned out, they weren't talking about the same project at all, only their acronyms where the same.

\- In a report that explained why a particular proposal was selected over its competitors, one of the positive points was that their proposal was clearly written, understandable, and didn't contain any acronym.

<comment><USER42> It does say to "Use everyday English whenever possible. Avoid jargon and legalistic words, and always explain any technical terms you have to use."

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> This guide makes excellent points. I also recommend this book:

[https://www.amazon.com/Style-Clarity-Chicago-Writing- Publish...](https://www.amazon.com/Style-Clarity-Chicago-Writing- Publishing/dp/0226899152)

He says that to achieve clarity, imagine the subject of each sentence as the character of a scene, and the verb as its action. Make sure you hit both character and action within the first 6-10 words of your sentence.

Begin each sentence with information that the reader is familiar with, and end it with the new information you want to introduce.

That will get you a long way toward creating understanding (and feeling) in the reader.

</comment><comment><USER44> As someone working with software engineers for which English is not a first language I cannot emphasise the importance of this enough. I've spent the last year or so consciously working on my writing and it's really paid off - especially given the current situation.

Never assume anything about your audience's understanding. Break everything down into short, concise sentences. If you're attempting to get across a non- trivial concept avoid the temptation to use big words - even if you end up having to write more. When you're done take another pass and see if you can simplify things further.

</comment><comment><USER45> I don't write in E-Prime, but I think it raises a valid point: you can often clarify and strengthen your English sentences by avoiding the verb "to be".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime)

<comment><USER46> Given someone called John who is a racist, can you find a way to say "John is a racist" in E-Prime without making John seem less racist?

<comment><USER45> I think the point is that you describe what John does, or how people think of John, rather than what John "is". The Wikipedia article (which constitutes all I know about E-Prime) says:

> [The authors of E-Prime] describe misuse of the verb _to be_ as creating a > "deity mode of speech", allowing "even the most ignorant to transform their > opinions magically into god-like pronouncements on the nature of things".

And I think that's appropriate here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Structure is the biggest factor of readability. We've seen many English style guides, but they are mostly on a sentence and vocabulary level.

A run-on sentence can still be read, just more slowly. An unfamiliar word can be tackled with a dictionary.

But if the text isn't well-organized on the larger scale, there is no hope.

</comment><comment><USER48> _The Elements of Style_ by Strunk & White offers similar advice: "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style)

<comment><USER49> Although it is a marvelous little book, _' The Elements of Style'_ is quite lacking. Instead, I'd strongly echo the suggestion of the user 'icu' in this thread[1], where they mention _' Style: Towards Clarity and Grace'_ by Joseph Williams and Gregory Colomb (there are several editions of this; but any earlier edition would do).

To quote from _' Towards Clarity and Grace'_ (it is alluding to what's lacking in _' The Elements'_):

[quote]

 _This is a book about writing clearly. I wish it could be short and simple like some others more widely known, but I want to do more than just urge writers to "Omit Needless Words" or "Be clear." Telling me to "Be clear" is like telling me to "Hit the ball squarely." I know that. What I don't know is how to do it. To explain how to write clearly, I have to go beyond platitudes._

 _But I want to do more than just help you write clearly. I also want you to understand this matter to understand why some prose seems clear, other prose not, and why two readers might disagree about it; why a passive verb can be a better choice than an active verb; why so many truisms about style are either incomplete or wrong. More important, I want that understanding to consist not of anecdotal bits and pieces, but of a coherent system of principles more useful than "Write short sentences."_

[/quote]

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268952](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24268952)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> The EU has ended up inventing its own form of English [0]

"Over the years, the European institutions have developed a vocabulary that differs from that of any recognised form of English. It includes words that do not exist or are relatively unknown to native English speakers outside the EU institutions and often even to standard spellcheckers/grammar checkers ('planification', 'to precise' or 'telematics' for example) and words that are used with a meaning, often derived from other languages, that is not usually found in English dictionaries ('coherent' being a case in point). Some words are used with more or less the correct meaning, but in contexts where they would not be used by native speakers ('homogenise', for example)."

[0] [https://www.eca.europa.eu/Other%20publications/EN_TERMINOLOG...](https://www.eca.europa.eu/Other%20publications/EN_TERMINOLOGY_PUBLICATION/EN_TERMINOLOGY_PUBLICATION.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER51> > * A list that is a continuous sentence with several listed points picked out > at the beginning, middle or end.

> * A list of separate points with an introductory statement (like this list).

> In the list above, each point is a complete sentence

Er, no, each of those is a (quite long, given the target sentence size the piece argues for) freestanding noun phrase, not a complete sentence.

</comment><comment><USER52> "It's faster to write."

Totally disagree with this point. Orwell explains how the exact opposite is true in his "Politics and the English Language." Vague writing requires only vague thought. Clear writing requires clear thought (as well as editing), and clear thought takes effort. As a writer, you might have to spend more time actually typing unclear and convoluted garbage, but you can basically turn off your brain and just start vomiting words onto the page. To do that asks much less of you than writing clearly does. (Classic example is the Pascal quote: "I apologize for the length of my letter. I didn't have time to write a shorter one.")

</comment><comment><USER53> > whilst (while)

I'm not a native English speaker, but I find it funny how Americans often consider English spellings wrong.

I wonder if American Hispanics do the same for Spaniards:

> Ahem, it's pronounced "ustedes", not "vosotros". That's not a word.

<comment><USER54> Spanish spellings are quite standardized around the world, the "language academies" of each country collaborate together. Moreover Spanish writing is phonetic so there's only really one way to pronounce a written word.

On the other hand, in Spain we're famous for "cecear", that is to pronounce "c" as the z in zombie; while in the rest of Latin America the pronounce it more like an s.

<comment><USER55> > Spanish writing is phonetic so there's only really one way to pronounce a > written word.

So there are no accents or dialects in Spain?

<comment><USER54> Of course there are. What I mean is that each letter is only pronounced one way.

For example, in English the "o" in "woman" and "women" sounds different, with exactly the same syllabic structure. However in Spanish, every time you write the "o" it is pronounced the same as every other "o". In some accents/dialects some letters will have slightly different pronunciations or intonations (e.g. c turns into s, or s at the end of a word will turn silent), but within that accent, most sounds will remain stably linked to a letter.

EDIT: Of course, I am not a linguist and I'm sure every word of my example can be debunked a million ways; but this is the experience of the language for a native Spain Spanish speaker.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> "Most experts would agree that clear writing should have an average sentence length of 15 to 20 words."

This quote is so preposterous it almost made me want to stop reading the article. Different types of writing should have different sentence lengths. I'm quite sure the sentence length for a math textbook and a Clorox ad should be different. There's a reason it's not common practice to measure one's average sentence lengths.

Like most material written on language, this article says almost nothing and is basically filler. "Don't be afraid to give instructions". "Use lists where appropriate". Well of course we know we can give instructions! I recently read a famous book called "How to Read a Book" that in a similar vein struggled to find anything non-obvious to say about language. It just comes so naturally to people that it's difficult to comment on. This article is coming from an organization called the Plain English Campaign that's been around since 1979. I wonder what they can have claimed to have accomplished since then.

This article reminded me of arguments I always read in philosophy about tough subjects like radical skepticism where the authors fail to make any points beyond the obvious. Sure, certain knowledge is impossible for humans to attain, but can you say anything else!?

<comment><USER57> As a non-native english writer, I found the article quite good.

It reminds good practices for clear communication, which I wish everyone applied in my org.

Notably around me, people excessively use passive forms.

So, you weren't interested, but it doesn't mean it interests noone.

<comment><USER58> In order to communicate effectively you need a mental model of your audience. The same sentence can be cumbersome to some readers, just right for others, and even condescendingly simplistic for a small minority.

The fact that you found the article to be useful simply means that you are part of their target audience, which is great. Just keep in mind that the same advice will not work as well when you communicate with a different audience

<comment><USER57> I'll keep it in mind :-)

My context with using english in general (like here on HN) is communicating as a non-native with both native speakers and non-native speakers. For some of those, just reading english is a challenge.

Since I also know I can easily write nonsensical sentences, I thought this article was a good reminder on how to safely stay in the "I make sense" area in this context, and as so disagreed with person I replied to ^^

I would definitely have higher ambitions regarding "tone" in my mother tongue though, but for english writing, I'll be happy if I can be clear !

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I've heard complaints that while it calls itself "campaign", implying it's a not-for-profit grass roots movement, it is actually a private for-profit company selling publications along with commercial editing and training services.

[https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02564513](https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02564513)

</comment><comment><USER60> As others here have mentioned, the British government maintains similar guidance:

[https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for- gov-u...](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-uk)

As does the US federal government:

[https://plainlanguage.gov/](https://plainlanguage.gov/)

</comment><comment><USER61> At the start of my career, I had some bad tendencies in both writing and programming. I delighted in being clever. I was eager to demonstrate my knowledge and ability. I was more concerned with having fun while writing than serving the reader. It has been educational to be forced to become a reader of my own work, though I read much more of my old code than my old writing.

</comment><comment><USER62> The US government actually put this idea into law 10 years ago: [https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-111publ274](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-111publ274)

More interesting link here: [https://plainlanguage.gov](https://plainlanguage.gov)

</comment><comment><USER63> > Most of the UK's biggest insurance companies produce policies that explain > everything fully in plain English.

Is this an argument in favour of plain English? Insurance policy documents are incredibly hard to understand and full of bloat. They are a near-perfect example of how not to write an accessible, informative, and useful document for the intended audience.

<comment><USER64> Two paragraphs down:

> Sadly, thanks to the bureaucrats of public service industries, local > councils, banks, building societies, _insurance companies_ and government > departments, we have learnt to accept an official style of writing that is > inefficient and often unfriendly.

> But in the last few years, many of these offenders have started to put > things right, either rewriting their documents clearly or training their > staff in the art of plain English, or both.

So, it's a work in progress. I agree that the order is confusing though.

<comment><USER63> I saw that but couldn't square it with the earlier sentence.

In my previous role we interviewed tens of small business owners and nobody knew what was in their docs. I hope insurance companies will be as bold to go beyond simplifying language but also simplifying terms (e.g. Lemonade's [https://www.lemonade.com/policy-two](https://www.lemonade.com/policy-two))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> > You may not photocopy any guide or pass on electronic copies without our > permission.

Why do people bother making unenforceable restrictions?

<comment><USER65> Bump. Yes, why the ominous copyright? It's plain silly.

<comment><USER66> I think the best (worst?) copyright notice is the following from Ken Rockwell[0]: "As this page is copyrighted and formally registered, it is unlawful to make copies, especially in the form of printouts for personal use. If you wish to make a printout for personal use, you are granted one-time permission only if you PayPal me $5.00 per printout or part thereof. Thank you!"

[0] [https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm](https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> This Orwell essay stuck with me many years ago, well worth a read: [https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...](https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit)

<comment><USER68> It's only the best English essay of its kind — or maybe of _any_ kind!

<comment><USER67> It could well be!

Reading it properly again for the first time in literally around 30 years I'm astonished at how much I've taken its messages to heart in my 20+ year career.

To this day I have a downright visceral reaction against "pretentious diction", and as a fairly confident written communicator I find overly "clever" writing is to be mistrusted, not praised. There's a real Emperor's New Clothes thing going on with a lot of business writing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> If anyone is interested, there is an excellent "plain style" guide which is recommend for much of the British Civil Service. It's called "Plain Words", and is by Sir Ernest Gowers. It's received an updated version in recent years.

</comment><comment><USER70> Longer sentences are better and more efficient for conveying content when used appropriately. Short sentences mean you have to use too many conjunctions and other filler. Use whatever style you think will be the most effective for readers.

<comment><USER71> I think there are two kinds of long sentences.

One just keeps adding detail. It's essentially a list. Breaking it up into multiple sentences would require a lot of unnecessary conjunctions as you say.

The other kind of long sentence forces you to keep a lot in your head until the meaning is finally resolved at the very end. That's the kind of sentence that should be broken up because it creates unnecessary mental burden.

<comment><USER72> It may also create necessary mental burden. I think too much has been considered "unnecessary mental burden" recently, including education.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> Was the "avoid nominalization" section intended to be tongue-in-cheek? "Nominalization" is itself a nominalization. If the section followed its own advice it would read "don't nominalize [verbs]"

</comment><comment><USER74> " _Apologising: If you are replying to a tricky letter or a complaint, or are dealing with a difficult problem, put yourself in the reader 's shoes. Be professional, not emotional. You may have to give a firm, unwelcome answer, but be as helpful and polite as possible. If you are going to apologise, do so early. If the problem is your fault, say so. Apologise completely and concisely, sympathetically and sincerely. And whether it is your fault or not, try to emphasise what you can do for the other person._"

Wow. Worth the price of entry right there.

</comment><comment><USER75> > Use lists where appropriate

This is so important. How many essays are basically a list of unrelated arguments, but not presented as a list?

Things lists make easier:

\- Refer to specific points.

\- Skip a point you already understand.

Even as I write this, I had to remind myself to express it as a list, rather then a long-winded sentence, which I probably wouldn't have if I weren't writing specifically to advocate lists. It's so deeply ingrained by years of english classes to hide the structure of the text with clauses such as "furthermore". I even remember being supposed to learn a list of such clauses.

</comment><comment><USER76> > Sadly, thanks to the bureaucrats of public service industries, local > councils, banks, building societies, insurance companies and government > departments, we have learnt to accept an official style of writing that is > inefficient and often unfriendly.

Interesting. I thought the use of "thanks to" as a preposition indicating a causal relationship with negative consequences was generally discouraged, because, by its very nature, it's a metaphor. But I can't find any style guide that would support this.

</comment><comment><USER77> One thing not mentioned that I'd like to add is avoid using pronouns when you can. Like he, she, it, them, this, that. As soon as you have multiple nouns in when explaining something, you can get screwed. I find myself typing pronouns a lot and when I read back what I wrote, I can see how people get confused. Clarity is so important, and pronouns hurt that.

</comment><comment><USER78> This might be a good spot to point out that there is actually a BCP 47 language tag for this: en-simple. I would love to see more adoption.

More info: [https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf- languages/yVTGZS-...](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf- languages/yVTGZS-6IfBnnk8hmz1n36jVpgM)

</comment><comment><USER79> When the purpose of written communication is to direct, instruct or inform, Plain English works wonders.

Other times, like when people write to demonstrate nuanced expertise, or to connect with a specific audience, or to place themselves apart from a specific audience, or to entertain, delight, uplift, transcend, prod, annoy, or console, Plain English can be too plain.

</comment><comment><USER80> Reminds me of this clip of David Foster Wallace where he discusses puffy words like "prior to" and "utilize" that people use for some reason when a much simpler word works: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_sQrxAorDo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_sQrxAorDo)

</comment><comment><USER81> I see no proof that 'active' is better than 'passive'. Does anyone have any more information on this?

<comment><USER72> What would be considere a proof in linquistics?

<comment><USER81> A study on the impact of both methods? I don't understand how it can be claimed 'active' is better than 'passive'?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> This looks to be a bit of a distillation of "revising prose" book [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1552699.Revising_Prose](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1552699.Revising_Prose)

</comment><comment><USER83> it's very hard to write well.

one of the best pieces of writing advice i ever heard:

your sentences should make sense enough to be taken out of a paragraph and put on a new line for each sentence.

if your sentences make sense on a line-by-line basis, then your writing is more understandable.

</comment><comment><USER84> How in the world am I to do this, when no manager nor leader in my org leads by example?

<comment><USER85> Do this in the areas you control. If that's just your own output, that's OK. Maybe later you can expand it.

<comment><USER84> Indeed, good suggestion.

The tension is with standing out, culturally and otherwise. If what you do is outside the norm, you are "different" and "difficult to work with".

But yea, doing the right thing is more important!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Another good resource is [https://plainlanguage.gov/](https://plainlanguage.gov/)

I frequently refer writers to specific sections of this site when I edit their technical and marketing documents.

</comment><comment><USER86> I love that they destroy those myths, which have become a pox on beautiful, expressive writing. The "no split infinitive" nonsense-rule has a spectacularly shameful history.

</comment><comment><USER87> Reminds me of Wikipedia's "simple English" approach.

I think the difference is, that simple or basic English only uses the 1000 most common words.

<comment><USER88> You might not know it, but "thousand" is not one of the ten hundred most usual English words! [https://github.com/aaron-em/ten-hundred- mode.el](https://github.com/aaron-em/ten-hundred-mode.el)

<comment><USER72> I think this is English specific and could do more harm than good for someone with a different background. E.g. in my language counting anything > 1000 in hundreds would sound very weird.

<comment><USER88> "Ten hundred", "twenty hundred", etc. sound very weird in English, too, despite "eleven hundred", "twelve hundred", etc. being commonplace in at least the American dialect.

That said, "ten hundred" is hardly the weirdest thing about English prose written in ten-hundred-mode...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> Oblig Scott Adams reference, for anyone who hasn't seen it yet:

[https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/06/the...](https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/06/the_day_you_bec.html)

</comment><comment><USER90> "a mistake was made" as a good use of passive? Is that a joke?

<comment><USER91> As a way to blurring whom to blame, yes it works fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> Would like to see a similar suggestion for writing in plain German.

</comment><comment><USER93> That's actually really useful.

</comment><comment><USER94> As someone who finds passive language patronizing and insulting, this is a relief to read.

<comment><USER95> "this is a relief to read" -> "reading this relieved me"

Perhaps passive voice isn't as annoying to you as you claim. There is a difference between writing passively and using passive voice.

<comment><USER94> Hah, indeed. I'd say the passive voice is a common a tool for patronizing people, and too much tolerance for it is bad for an organization.

<comment><USER96> > and too much tolerance for it is bad for an organization

Passive again! "An organization tolerating it too much is bad" is active :)

<comment><USER94> The intended more-active would be "A leader who tolerates too much of it harms their organization," so it doesn't always transpose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I write technical guides for people who are not native speakers. Using simple vocabulary is easy, but using simple grammar is not.

Here's a recent article I wrote. It should give you an idea of what I mean: [https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/car-insurance- germany](https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/car-insurance-germany)

There are a few things I would add to this:

\---

▶ Your readers are here for information, not entertainment. Get to the point.

▶ If a paragraph answers a question, the first sentence should be the tl;dr. Highlight it if necessary. [1]

▶ Use formatting to make skimming easier. Users don't read documents from start to finish. They are looking for specific answers. [2] I spent a lot of time tweaking my website to be more readable.

▶ Use can (optional), should (recommended) and must (mandatory) consistently. "It's ill-advised to do this, because ..." >>> "You should not do this, because ...".

▶ Avoid run-on sentences. Generally, that means maximum one comma per sentence.

▶ Start with the "if" part of the sentence: "If you are over 60, you are not eligible". It lets people skip sentences that don't concern them.

▶ Avoid expressions and idioms as much as possible. "If you're feeling under the weather, stay home" >>> "If you don't feel well, stay home".

▶ Avoid ambiguity between sentences: "The cat sits in the house. It is old." >>> "The old cat sits in the house".

▶ Use commas generously. It makes sentences easier to digest. I'm a big fan of the Oxford comma.

▶ Use Hemingway [3] to catch some of those mistakes

\---

In other words, DON'T BE CLEVER. It feels a lot like writing software that will be maintained by novice programmers.

Simple language is really important, especially if you deal with the general population. Some people don't read well. Some people don't speak English well. Some topics are confusing enough on their own.

[1] [https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/anmeldung-in-english- berli...](https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/anmeldung-in-english-berlin#can-i- do-my-anmeldung-at-a-hotel-or-airBnB)

[2] [https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/how-to-get-a-german- freela...](https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/how-to-get-a-german-freelance- visa)

[3] [http://www.hemingwayapp.com/](http://www.hemingwayapp.com/)

</comment><comment><USER35> Why is bad writing so common, though? I think this needs further exploration. What are the incentives of the different actors? TL;DR CYA

Clearly, the reader just wants to get the information that is relevant for them personally, with the least cognitive effort. Then move on with their day or to the next step in their workflow.

The company/government can have various incentives on various levels of the hierarchy/bureaucracy.

The boss/owner may want the company to communicate in a snappy, hip, youthful way, in a friendly and clear tone with no bullshit.

However, the person/department actually writing the text may want to deflect responsibility, avoid possibilities for blame, keep things vague enough so the onus is on the customer/citizen to make sure everything will work out. They don't want to deviate from process. The customers/citizens should be uniform with no exceptions, because exceptions cause work. If you write too friendly, people will assume they can get favors, that we can start bargaining because they are talking to a real person. Text written in a cold, dispassionate, bureaucratic style will not invite such answers. It signals that things are set in stone, that there is a process in place and we won't say A or B, they will have to figure our A vs. B themselves.

For example, I'm a teaching assistant at a university. If I'm buried under too much work with research and get lots of complicated questions from students, I give vague answers so I can't get blamed ("But XY said it would work out this way!"). Also if I use a bunch of official words and formal sentence structure, the student gets the message that I won't do the work instead of them: there can be tons of different rules interacting, different study programs have different rule books etc. In the end it's their responsibility. I cannot give definitive answers, but experience shows, that writing things plainly often invites more haggling than writing in an official tone.

The same thing happens when people talk about medical, legal and other potentially dangerous topics. Even if the actual answer is straightforward and will apply in 99% of the cases, nobody gets fired for being too cautious. "Nah don't do that" is the easiest thing to say. Ask your doctor. Ask an attorney. Check the laws of your region.

To write plain and clear text, you need to leave all these caveats out. But people will jump at every opportunity to try to shift the blame, and if you weren't careful, it will accumulate on _your_ desk. To avoid this, orgs and lawmakers should make sure to reduce the legal responsibility for saying things.

For example I know a(n underpaid) lawyer working for a governmental institution in Hungary. They are in the communications department and give advice on certain legal things to ordinary citizens phoning in or over email. Fortunately, the laws and rules are set up such that they cannot be blamed for answering wrong or not hedging enough, they can write as they would to a family member. It's not "legal advice", because you can't know _all_ circumstances from just an email question. At best, the person or company who acts on such advice can use the email exchange to demonstrate due diligence. They at least tried. Still, it's fully their responsibility to check and interpret the law.

Therefore, unless you shield your writers/departments from blame by similar explicit rules, they will shield themselves through vaguery and hedging and complicated writing.</comment>


Reaching Out to the World With Twitter - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/business/smallbusiness/23twitter.html?_r=1&ref=technology

<comment><USER2> The New York Times discovers the _local_ (in San Francisco?!?) potentials of Twitter for small businesses. Yes, even street cart vendors.

I'm still waiting for AT&T to function well enough in my little backwater to make iPhones feasible... not to mention for 1/4 of the population to be internet-savvy (or have heard there is a "tech revolution").

If anybody wants to move to a high desert town with huge hours of sunshine per year (and in need of a revolution/awakening)... email me.

<comment><USER3> Heh, heh, I feel your pain buddy. I'm in the metro area now but i've traveled around CO enough to have pity on anyone doing tech work (that expects any local receptivity).

(But, sorry, that doesn't mean I'm interested in moving to your wasteland.)</comment></comment>


Should a senior in Comp Sci know what a .tar file is? - <AUTHOR>

Today at work I met an intern who happened to be a senior in computer science at a well-known area college.  While helping them to get started on an assignment, it struck me as odd when they were working in Notepad, double-clicking what were obviously command-line programs, and didn't know what a .tar file was.<p>Who is to blame here?  Clearly the student doesn't have a passion for what they are studying.  On the other hand, how does a computer science department let students go nearly 4 years without exposure to things like UNIX-like operating systems? <comment><USER2> Computer Science can be taught without a student ever having used a computer; it's a branch of mathematics. Would you expect a mathematician to know what a .tar file is?

Reminds me of a quote from one of the most famous Computer Scientists, who was really a mathematician:

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." \- E. W. Dijkstra (1930 - 2002)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is true, in the purest sense of CS. However, how much pure mathematical theory can you fill _three and a half years_ of university education with?

I would imagine that a comp sci department where they never reach a point where the "rubber meets the road" is not worth the trouble.

<comment><USER3> > I would imagine that a comp sci department where they never reach a point > where the "rubber meets the road" is not worth the trouble.

...unless your rubber has already met your own personal road long ago. I, personally, learned everything _practical_ I needed to know about programming long before I stepped into a CS class, mostly from self-teaching and the web; I only took CS to "straighten out" my theoretical knowledge. I would have loved a CS department with no computers installed (except perhaps for interactive debugging after it's already clear that you can express yourself in pseudocode.)

<comment><USER4> OT: I'm in a similar situation: I've 11 years' experience and want to take some CS classes now that I live near Berkeley. Any tips?

<comment><USER5> I can't speak for Berkeley, but my favorite classes in CS were always the ones on Algorithms and novel languages.

Avoid classes that teach syntax, unless the syntax is used to highlight a language feature you have never encountered before, like continuations or currying.

<comment><USER6> English is my favorite novel language, but I didn't have much time for reading fiction in school. ;)

<comment><USER5> hehe... I meant the adjective, not the noun.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _"... Should a senior in Comp Sci know what a .tar file is? ..."_

This is a statement telling me what the comp-sci is not doing:

\- not interested in "systems" by not downloading installing free operating systems & servers

\- not interested in software "tools" by not using free software compilers downloading new & interesting code to sample and understand

\- not interested in "making things" because a lot of software is still delivered as source code wrapped in tar.

\- just plain not interested

From physicists to chemists, archaeologists to biologists people in science use, hack and develop their own tools on computers to solve their problems and would most likely encounter tar.

        $ tar -zxvf foo.tar.gz

The computer is just another tool. For comp-sci's to not know what a ".tar", how it works [0] is just plain ignorance of the worst kind.

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_>(file_format)

</comment><comment><USER8> Short answer: No, assuming you meant "should _every_ CS senior know what a .tar file is?".

Long answer: Not always. Large and fascinating branches of CS has nothing to do with computers. A programmer looking to work on UNIX-based file systems should know what a .tar file is.

A commitment to GUI interfaces (and general mouse love) and not knowing .tar files probably just means the person had only seen Windows. I'd say the average child will take a week of dedicated learning before OK at using command line/Linux-based OS's. It would probably be a good idea to have a little intro-course to people who haven't seen Linux (kind of like a summary of OS class in college) at your company to catch these people up.

One of the things that bothers me most about the snobbier computer enthusiasts is how much pride they take in their curiosity, even if what they learn isn't all that impressive - it would take less than a minute to explain .tar file is to a degree more thorough than understood by half of the people who use them.

<comment><USER5> On the other hand, the CS program has a pretty glaring hole if it doesn't at least have an intro seminar into Unix-like operating systems, where things like tar files would surely be on the syllabus. I know I was offered a free week long seminar (about an hour a night) on Linux and gnu tools as a freshman at KU. Unix-like OS's make up a sizeable chunk of the programming landscape, so it would be strange to never mention them.

Maybe his CS program is super-theoretical and doesn't concern itself with implementation. Of course, it's far more likely that it's a lightweight shop turning out blub programmers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> We had a guy at our company with a Masters in cs and he didn't know the shortcuts for copy and paste! His first code review was unbelievably painful. Suffice to say he didn't last too long.

<comment><USER10> Funny, I find the people who are expert at copy and paste tend to generate the more painful code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> eh

I don't really feel that a professor should go through and explain common filetypes, that really isn't computer science.

However, if a 21 year old is passionate about programming, they will have come into contact with a command line and tar files on their own obviously.

<comment><USER12> Agreed. It's not the school's responsibility to teach a student what a .tar is, but if the kid is doing any programming out of personal interest he should have come across it.

In my experience, CS students who know what they are doing are usually using Mac or Linux by the time they graduate.

<comment><USER13> At my university, we used Unix for everything. We never had any lectures about how to use make, tar, cvs or LaTeX. But we were required to use them, so we had to learn stuff ourselves. I think that is the best way to learn, since it made us more independent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm not worried about him not knowing what a tar file is - fine, he likes Windows, whatever.

What greatly disturbs me is his choice of text editor. Notepad? Seriously?! If you've only programmed with IDEs or Notepad, that is a serious problem. I love vi, and am competent in emacs, but even in a Windows environment he should go for Notepad++ or something...

<comment><USER15> uhmmmm as a windows user, tars are all over the place if you look for them, but then, i might have found them as a hacker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I had something similar to this happen to me in my 2nd semester programming class at Berkeley. I was in the lab for a class that was taught in Java for data structures (and C when the memory management talk started). We were 5 weeks into a 10 week class. The guy programming to my left turned to me and asked me what "double equals" (as in ==) meant. I was stunned, but then answered. Later it struck me: how the hell did this guy get through the metacircular evaluator in the first semester? How had he gotten through the previous 5 weeks of assignments? I think about it even now and wonder.

<comment><USER17> Switch statements?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> For what it's worth, I have 15 years of Unix work experience and I don't think I saw any tar file until graduating (my university was a mostly-DOS shop). I learned mostly on the job... man vi was painful... but now I can't use an editor for humans anymore.

</comment><comment><USER19> Interesting. To become a competent programmer, a person has to spend a significant amount of time exploring and learning all of the nuances involved.

What other fields of study require this sort of initiative outside of the classroom? Is it enough for a chemist to go to class and complete the homework?

I can't think of any field where curiosity is as important as in computer science and where the classroom is so insufficient.

<comment><USER20> Programming is an art. All fields of art that I know of require this kind of outside initiative to be any good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> To be honest, I still don't completely see the point of tar - isn't it redundant, since zip puts things into an archive anyway? Coming from windows, I never used tar, I just zipped everything. Any now that I am on Linux, I never had the need to tar anything. Untaring thankfully is provided by the Gnome File Explorer.

Using Notepad for programming, however, is really odd...

<comment><USER22> If you have a folder full of media files (jpg|mp3|avi) then zip is going to waste a lot of time and CPU cycles over just tar-ing it all up.

Other than that, I've just used tar directly in some edge-cases to fit within some constraints.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> In my program, we had classes (6.033 <http://web.mit.edu/6.033/www/>, I'm looking at you) with tasks that practically required you to use *NIX systems, know how to open LaTeX'd Postscript files, install open source libraries from tar files, etc. before you graduated. It's not that those things were explicitly the point of the assignments; it's that those things were simply part of the requisite yak shaving for successfully completing the real tasks.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm not a programmer and I found your example horrific.

It seems like a biz guy not knowing what excel is.

</comment><comment><USER25> I meet a lot of kids like this at my school. They don't learn anything on their own or do any work if it's not part of some pre-defined "program" or "track".

</comment><comment><USER26> 4 years without a single CS professor using tar to distribute anything to their students sounds like a crummy CS program to me.

</comment><comment><USER27> My answer: no, but he should want to find out.

</comment><comment><USER28> That's just stupid :S Clearly, he hasn't compiler a single proggie from source, except maybe his own.

</comment><comment><USER29> yes.

</comment><comment><USER30> The point is moot. Storage schemes are not important in themselves.

</comment><comment><USER31> This isn't a big deal.

<comment><USER32> Why isn't it?

<comment><USER31> What's important is whether this person has any important skills that you care about. Also, it's quite possible to get by under Windows without knowing anything about tar files.

<comment><USER33> "Getting by under windows" doesn't really scream 'great coder' to me.

<comment><USER31> Windows has excellent development tools.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>