Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nobody. Understands. Punctuation.

stilldrinking.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 162 posts

Re: Nobody. Understands. Punctuation.

#61

Post by MichaelDickens »

Hermel wrote: post #50
Stratoscope wrote: post #40

Most of the time, you can use the Oxford comma, the non-Oxford comma or any other kind of comma, and it just doesn't make any difference. But sometimes you need it. Here's an example: "There are two hard problems in Computer Science: naming things, cache expiration, and off-by-one errors." Take out the comma and you ruin the joke - at least to my ears: "There are two hard problems in Computer Science: naming things,…

A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons. "Why?" asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder. "Well, I'm a panda," he says. "Look it up." The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enoug…

This isn't actually a case of the Oxford comma, though--it's just incorrect.

Re: Nobody. Understands. Punctuation.

#63

Post by bsilvereagle »

> and give the teachers a few things to decorate with smiley faces and Xs

This little snippet made it pretty clear to me that the vast majority of my teachers weren't educating, but ticking check-boxes on whether I had fulfilled X,Y, and Z requirements.

Re: Nobody. Understands. Punctuation.

#64

Post by phillijw »

billpollock wrote: post #26

Punctuation is about rhythm. Writing is about communication. And I start sentences with "and" all the time. I hardly know my grammar rules and I don't care. But I do care about making sure that writing is clear. That's the basic rule I've applied to the hundreds of books that I've edited. Oxford comma. Huh?

This is how I do it too. Rules are only rules because someone said so.

Re: Nobody. Understands. Punctuation.

#65

Post by icodestuff »

Stratoscope wrote: post #40

Most of the time, you can use the Oxford comma, the non-Oxford comma or any other kind of comma, and it just doesn't make any difference. But sometimes you need it. Here's an example: "There are two hard problems in Computer Science: naming things, cache expiration, and off-by-one errors." Take out the comma and you ruin the joke - at least to my ears: "There are two hard problems in Computer Science: naming things,…

I think it largely depends on if the last two items in the list are a natural combination, either in the same category, or complementary things. The former is why you need the Oxford comma for "the strippers, JFK, and Stalin"; the latter is why you need an Oxford comma in "we brought the tent, bread, and butter".

Off-topic, but I like this version of the joke better:

There are two hard problems in Computer Science: cache invalidation, off-by-one errors, and cache invalidation.

Re: Nobody. Understands. Punctuation.

#67

Post by Jemaclus »

centro wrote: post #59

I found this in the source of the page. The script also called a ruby script to send him a tweet which another script was probably monitoring to text his phone so he could screenshot the text and post to facebook via instagram. I think the "millenials" - who should be referred to as generation byte - get undeserved flak, as all generations do, for being younger and prettier and living in a different world. But this k…

And further down:

    /*

    Yeah, there's some shitty code here. 
    There are some things that shouldn't 
    be done. I did them. Sometimes, I had 
    my reasons. Sometimes, I was just being 
    lazy. But guess what? You're sitting
    there reading the source on some guy's
    blog. So fuck you.

    */

Re: Nobody. Understands. Punctuation.

#68

Post by SheepSlapper »

andolanra wrote: post #52
SheepSlapper wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the Oxford comma, because it leaves no room for ambiguity. I've heard anecdotes of people omitting the comma in contracts and having it come back to bite them in the butt... but who knows if there's any truth in them or not.

Except that the Oxford comma does leave room for ambiguity, c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_comma#Creating_ambiguity Frankly, with writing in natural languages, hard-and-fast rules like, "Oxford Comma are always unambiguous," and, "Always avoid passives," tend to make your writing weaker, because there are still some cases in which Oxford Commas are ambiguous and passives are the right tool for the job. What…

From Wikipedia: "Without a serial comma, the above dedication would read... a phrase ambiguous only if the reader accepts the interpretation..."

In this case the serial comma isn't creating any ambiguity, the bad writing is (and the serial comma shifts the ambiguity to the second/third item being listed). When they suggest a better way to write the example sentence, it uses the Oxford comma both times (though I'd argue that the second sentence isn't a solution).

I agree that nothing is ever absolute (hah), but the Oxford comma takes care of ambiguities most of the time, and merely shifts the ambiguity around when appositive phrases are thrown into the mix. And reducing ambiguity should be the goal of every writer.

Re: Nobody. Understands. Punctuation.

#69

Post by JadeNB »

forgottenpass wrote: post #33
eCa wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider though: To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God [1] Is the writer's mother Ayn Rand? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_comma#Creating_ambiguity

Any use of commas in a list for something other than separating items, regardless of Oxford comma, makes for ambiguous sentences. That one is just written to make the Oxford comma a culprit. Try: To my mother, Ayn Rand, Jimmy, Bobbie and Sue.

> Any use of commas in a list for something other than separating items, regardless of Oxford comma, makes for ambiguous sentences.

I've always felt that the use of parentheses for grouping is under-explored:

    To ((my mother (Ayn Rand)) and God).
Of course, this conflicts with the well ingrained tendency to subconsciously delete parentheticals, but, while pipe-dreaming, one could imagine different marks:

    To {{my mother {Ayn Rand}} and God}.
I'm actually serious about my belief that this sort of thing is logically sensible, but recognise its practical drawbacks ((a) everyone likes the visual appearance of Lisp, right? and (b) everyone speaks Esperanto or Lojban because of its logical primacy, right?).

Re: Nobody. Understands. Punctuation.

#70

Post by [deleted] »

JadeNB wrote: post #69
forgottenpass wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any use of commas in a list for something other than separating items, regardless of Oxford comma, makes for ambiguous sentences. That one is just written to make the Oxford comma a culprit. Try: To my mother, Ayn Rand, Jimmy, Bobbie and Sue.

> Any use of commas in a list for something other than separating items, regardless of Oxford comma, makes for ambiguous sentences. I've always felt that the use of parentheses for grouping is under-explored: To ((my mother (Ayn Rand)) and God). Of course, this conflicts with the well ingrained tendency to subconsciously delete parentheticals, but, while pipe-dreaming, one could imagine different marks: To {{my mothe…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN