- Jun 2021
When defining accessors in Ruby, there can be a tension between brevity (which we all love) and best practice.
- Oct 2020
first sighting: use of superscripts like this
I like it. Nice and concise and understandable.
- s¹ ￼￼￼ critical
- s² ￼￼ important
- s³ ￼ nice to have
- s⁴ ￼ low
- s⁵ ￼￼ inconvenient
But in other cases, the abbreviation is quite unclear and ambiguity:
Like, what does "pr" mean in these cases?
priority? Doubt it.
- pr¹ ￼ chore
- pr² ￼ docs
- pr³ ￼ feature
- pr⁴ ￼ fix
- pr⁵ ￼ performance
- pr⁶ ￼ refactor
- pr⁷ ￼ style
Pull Request? Doubt it. But maybe?
For axes that are quantifiable, like severity, using a number makes sense. But what benefit is there in including a number in these (platform?) labels?:
- p¹ ⋅ browser
- p² ⋅ linux
- p³ ⋅ mac
- p⁴ ⋅ windows
I think this would have been better and clearer (in that fewer people would be like huh? and wonder what it means):
- platform: browser
- platform: linux
- platform: mac
- platform: windows
Don't sacrifice clarity for brevity when creating a minimal example.
In mnemotechnic,brevitasrefers to the creating ofsuch ‘‘rich’’ if necessarily ‘‘brief ’’ units. Because there is in principle no limiton the number ofdivisionesa person may have in memory, readers could beencouraged to make ‘‘brief and compendious’’ summaries of materials theyhad learned.
This is very similar to the idea in TiddlyWiki or Zettlekasten of writing down and storing the minimal amount of information on a card to capture an idea.
- Feb 2014
Beginning the issue with “are” or “is” often leads to a clearer and more concise expression of the issue than beginning it with “may,” “can,” “does,” or “should.” The latter beginnings may lead to vague or ambiguous versions of the issue. Examine the following alternative statements of the judicial issue from Aiken Industries, Inc. (TC, 1971), acq.: Issue 2 (Poor): Are the interest payments exempt from the withholding tax? Issue 2 (Poor): Should the taxpayer exempt the interest payments from withholding tax? In the first version of issue 2 above, to which interest payments and which withholding tax is the writer referring? The issue does not stand alone since it cannot be precisely understood apart from separately reading the brief�s facts. The extreme brevity leads to ambiguity. In the second version, the question can be interpreted as a moral or judgment issue rather than a legal one. Whether the taxpayer should do (or should not do) something may be a very different issue than the legal question of what the law requires. A legal brief, however, should focus on the latter. Rewriting issue 2 as follows leads to a clearer expression of the precise issue: Issue 2 (Better): Are interest payments exempt from the U.S. 30% withholding tax when paid to an entity established in a tax treaty country for no apparent purpose other than to escape taxation on the interest received?
Extreme brevity leads to ambiguity. The summary of the issue should be written to avoid opening the question to interpretation as a moral or judgment issue; instead focus on the legal question.