Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by countzeroasl 4882 days ago
Less keystrokes = optmal laziness.
2 comments

This isn't a valid argument for anyone using a proper text editor -- vi has auto indent, and emacs can autoindent using the tab key.
Less common though is a delete which treats spaces as tabs. I'm sure many do it, but Sublime was the first one I encountered that did it automatically.
Did you read the article you linked?

> The comparative less is used with both count and uncount nouns in most informal discourse environments and in most dialects of English, and in these environments, the word fewer is hardly used at all.

> Less has always been used in English with counting nouns. Indeed, the application of the distinction between less and fewer as a rule is a phenomenon originating in the 18th century.

etc etc.

> Did you read the article you linked?

Yes. The rule is:

"Less" of a continuous quantity.

"Fewer" of a countable quantity.

So "fewer" keystrokes. The issue is clear communications, not rules -- the rules serve the goal, not the reverse.

How is "less keystrokes" unclear?
It argues that some keystrokes are smaller than others, because that's what "less" means -- it describes the size (not the number) of the things under discussion.

Goerge W. Bush once said there would be less soldiers in Iraq in a subsequent year. I immediately pictured the same number of soldiers, but each of them smaller.

Again, it's not about correctness, it's about clear communications.

But you're using an arbitrary definition of 'less' that most people do not use, and have never used.

You can't redefine words and then complain when people don't use your new definition.

"Less keystrokes = optmal laziness." is perfectly clear in context. 'Smaller keystrokes' is, in context, nonsensical.