Good writing is about clarity and saying something substantive. It's not about flowery language or trying to sound smart. Instead, focus on thinking clearly, which translates into clear writing. This involves discarding bad ideas, dissecting good ones, and expressing the resulting thoughts simply and directly. Essentially, good writing is the product of clear thinking, relentless editing, and a genuine desire to communicate effectively with the reader. It's a continuous process of refinement, akin to repeatedly rewriting a paragraph until it expresses precisely what you intend.
Mark Twain humorously laments the complexities of the German language, satirizing its long compound words, arbitrary gender assignments, separable verbs, and convoluted sentence structures. He describes learning German as a Herculean task, filled with frustrating grammatical rules and baffling idioms. Twain exaggerates the language's difficulties through anecdotes of miscommunications and arduous study sessions, ultimately suggesting that German is deliberately designed to be confusing and inaccessible to outsiders. He jokingly advises readers to acquire German slowly, over several decades, or ideally, to inherit it.
HN commenters largely agree with Twain's humorous grievances about German. Several share anecdotes of their own struggles, particularly with separable verbs, word order, and excessively long compound words. Some highlight the systematic nature of German, arguing that while complex, its logic eventually becomes apparent and facilitates precision. Others discuss the cultural context of Twain's essay, noting that 19th-century German differed from its modern form and that Twain's comedic exaggeration shouldn't be taken as wholly serious criticism. A few commenters offer contrasting perspectives, appreciating the richness and expressiveness afforded by German's complexities. One points out the benefits of grammatical gender for disambiguation.
Wendell Berry argues against buying a computer in 1987, believing it offers no improvement to his writing process and presents several societal downsides. He emphasizes the value of his physical tools and the importance of resisting consumerism. He sees the computer as an unnecessary expense, especially given its potential to become obsolete quickly. He further criticizes the environmental impact of computer manufacturing and fears computers will contribute to job displacement, corporate centralization, and the erosion of community life. Ultimately, he values human connection and careful consideration over technological advancement and efficiency.
HN commenters largely agree with Wendell Berry's skepticism of computers, particularly his concerns about their societal impact. Several highlight the prescience of his observations about the potential for computers to centralize power, erode community, and create dependence. Some find his outright rejection of computers too extreme, suggesting a more nuanced approach is possible. Others discuss the irony of reading his essay online, while appreciating his call for careful consideration of technology's consequences. A few point out that Berry's agrarian lifestyle allows him a perspective unavailable to most. The top comment notes the essay is less a critique of computers themselves, and more a critique of the structures and systems they empower.
Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Child and the Shadow" explores the crucial role of integrating the shadow self for healthy psychological development. Le Guin uses the fairy tale of "The Shadow" by Hans Christian Andersen to illustrate how denying or repressing the shadow leads to alienation and unhappiness. She argues that the shadow, representing our darker impulses and less admirable qualities, must be acknowledged and accepted as part of the whole self. Through consciousness and acceptance, the shadow can be integrated, leading to wholeness, maturity, and the ability to connect authentically with others. This process, though potentially frightening, is essential for living a full and meaningful life.
HN users discuss Le Guin's essay on the shadow self, largely agreeing with her premise of integrating rather than suppressing the negative aspects of personality. Several commenters appreciate the Jungian perspective and explore the idea of the shadow as a source of creativity and authenticity. Some discuss the practical challenges of integrating the shadow, noting the societal pressures to conform and the difficulty in accepting uncomfortable truths about oneself. The danger of projecting the shadow onto others is also highlighted, as is the importance of self-awareness in navigating these complexities. A few commenters mention the relevance of Le Guin's essay to current societal issues, such as political polarization. Overall, the comments reflect a thoughtful engagement with Le Guin's ideas.
Eric Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" contrasts two different software development models. The "Cathedral" model, exemplified by traditional proprietary software, is characterized by closed development, with releases occurring infrequently and source code kept private. The "Bazaar" model, inspired by the development of Linux, emphasizes open source, with frequent releases, public access to source code, and a large number of developers contributing. Raymond argues that the Bazaar model, by leveraging the collective intelligence of a diverse group of developers, leads to faster development, higher quality software, and better responsiveness to user needs. He highlights 19 lessons learned from his experience managing the Fetchmail project, demonstrating how decentralized, open development can be surprisingly effective.
HN commenters largely discuss the essay's historical impact and continued relevance. Some highlight how its insights, though seemingly obvious now, were revolutionary at the time, changing the landscape of software development and popularizing open-source methodologies. Others debate the nuances of the "cathedral" versus "bazaar" model, pointing out examples where the lines blur or where a hybrid approach is more effective. Several commenters reflect on their personal experiences with open source, echoing the essay's observations about the power of peer review and decentralized development. A few critique the essay for oversimplifying complex development processes or for being less applicable in certain domains. Finally, some commenters suggest related readings and resources for further exploration of the topic.
The author recounts a brief, somewhat awkward encounter with Paul Graham at a coffee shop. They nervously approached Graham, introduced themselves as a fan of Hacker News, and mentioned their own startup idea. Graham responded politely but curtly, asking about the idea. After a mumbled explanation, Graham offered a generic piece of advice about focusing on users, then disengaged to rejoin his companions. The author was left feeling slightly deflated, realizing their pitch was underdeveloped and the interaction ultimately uneventful, despite the initial excitement of meeting a revered figure.
HN commenters largely appreciated the author's simple, unpretentious anecdote about meeting Paul Graham. Several noted the positive, down-to-earth impression Graham made, reinforcing his public persona. Some discussed Graham's influence and impact on the startup world, with one commenter sharing a similar experience of a brief but memorable interaction. A few comments questioned the significance of such a short encounter, while others found it relatable and heartwarming. The overall sentiment leaned towards finding the story charming and a pleasant reminder of the human side of even highly successful figures.
The author argues that Knuth's vision of literate programming, where code is written for humans within a narrative explaining its logic, hasn't achieved mainstream adoption because it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of programming. Rather than a linear, top-down process suitable for narrative explanation, programming is inherently exploratory and iterative, involving frequent refactoring and restructuring. Literate programming tools force a rigid structure onto this fluid process, making it cumbersome and ultimately counterproductive. The author proposes "exploratory programming" as a more realistic approach, emphasizing tools that facilitate quick exploration, refactoring, and visualization of code relationships, allowing understanding to emerge organically from the code itself.
Hacker News users discuss the merits and flaws of Knuth's literate programming style. Some argue that his approach, while elegant, prioritizes code as literature over practicality, making it difficult to navigate and modify, particularly in larger projects. Others counter that the core concept of intertwining code and explanation remains valuable, but modern tooling like Jupyter notebooks and embedded documentation offer better solutions. The thread also explores alternative approaches like docstrings and the use of comments to generate documentation, emphasizing the importance of clear and concise explanations within the codebase itself. Several commenters highlight the benefits of separating documentation from code for maintainability and flexibility, suggesting that the ideal approach depends on the project's scale and complexity. The original post is criticized for misrepresenting Knuth's views and focusing too heavily on superficial aspects like tool choice rather than the underlying philosophy.
Summary of Comments ( 67 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44081586
Hacker News users largely agreed with Paul Graham's essay on good writing, praising its clarity and actionable advice. Several commenters highlighted the importance of rewriting and editing, echoing Graham's emphasis on the process. Some offered additional tips, such as reading your work aloud and focusing on clarity for the reader. A few pointed out the inherent difficulty of writing well, while others appreciated the essay's encouragement to strive for better writing despite the challenge. The value of simple language and clear thinking was a recurring theme, with some sharing personal anecdotes of how Graham's writing style influenced them. A minor point of contention arose regarding Graham's dismissal of certain stylistic choices, with some defending the occasional use of more complex sentence structures.
The Hacker News post titled "Good Writing," linking to Paul Graham's essay on the same subject, generated a moderate amount of discussion with 29 comments. Many commenters generally agree with Graham's points about clarity and conciseness being crucial for good writing.
Several commenters emphasize the importance of rewriting and editing, echoing Graham's advice. One commenter highlights the benefit of reading one's own work aloud to catch awkward phrasing and improve flow. Another suggests using tools like Grammarly, Hemingway Editor, and ProWritingAid to help identify areas for improvement.
Some commenters delve into specific techniques mentioned in Graham's essay. One discusses the value of using simple words and avoiding jargon. Another explores the concept of "through-lines" in writing, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a clear and consistent narrative thread.
A few commenters offer additional advice beyond what Graham covers. One suggests focusing on the reader and their needs, emphasizing empathy as a key component of effective communication. Another highlights the importance of understanding the specific context and audience for any piece of writing.
One commenter challenges the notion that all writing should strive for absolute clarity, arguing that some forms of writing, such as poetry or fiction, can benefit from ambiguity and layered meaning. This leads to a brief discussion about the different goals and styles of writing.
A couple of commenters share personal anecdotes about their writing process and the challenges they face. One discusses the difficulty of balancing clarity with creativity, while another describes their struggles with perfectionism.
While there isn't one overwhelmingly compelling comment that stands out from the rest, the discussion provides a valuable extension of Graham's essay by offering practical tips, exploring nuances, and sharing personal experiences related to the craft of writing. The general consensus affirms the core principles of good writing outlined by Graham, with commenters offering further insights and perspectives on the topic.