[Biganon]

Please refrain from willingly picking the naive interpretation when you've understood my point perfectly fine, it's against the rules of this website.

...sigh:

Secret codes as in "watermark-level omission of characters" are a myth. Lingo and jargon do however exist, and convey meaning in a particularly subtle way. They are shared and taught by culture, not by a secret handbook passed down from generation to generation. See also dogwhistling.

The goal is to protect the issuer, not to selflessly inform the recipient.

[HankB99]

This reminds me of the joke whose punch line is

> You will be lucky to have this person work for you.

[angst_ridden]

"I cannot recommend X too highly. X always served as an example to their colleagues. The quality of X's code was unequalled in our department, and X's work always merited special attention." (etc)

[doktrin]

> I cannot recommend X too highly

This isn't a veiled statement. It's outright dunking on the applicant.

[thedanbob]

It can be interpreted both ways: "I cannot recommend X too highly (because they suck)" vs "I cannot recommend X too highly (because whatever praise I give will be inadequate)"

[doktrin]

If praise is the intent, it would be phrased as "... cannot recommend X highly enough"

[MiguelX413]

I disagree.

[boxed]

My take away from this is that any positive thing written in a letter of recommendation can be read as sarcasm by an English speaker.

I think there's some deeper issue with the language/culture here.

[doktrin]

Every language has turns of phrase that are not necessarily intuitive to non-native speakers.

[FabHK]

I think the line is

> you would be lucky to get this employee to work for you!

[keybored]

May HR personnel live in interesting times.

[sb057]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

"In politics, a dog whistle is the use of coded or suggestive language..."