[edgyquant]

It would result in them being shorter

[LastTrain]

It would result in a pointless formal exercise simply designed to make things more difficult without any tangible benefit. Bureaucracy.

[malfist]

Is shorter better?

[airstrike]

Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

-- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

[malfist]

That doesn't mean shorter is always better. When you take away necessary detail to make things shorter, you wind up with a shorter, less perfect law.

For instance, if the law was "No driving over 70mph on I-75", shortening the law to "No driving" isn't an improvement. And even if we maintain the detail and shorten to "No 70+mph driving @ I-75" it doesn't improve things.

Concise is good. shortness for shortness sake is not. We don't need to be playing code golf with laws.

[snvzz]

Seen this quote recently, in some book about RISC-V.

[lockhouse]

Shorter makes it harder to stuff it full of pork.