> most people can’t write and don’t know how to write something that’s valuable to the reader
...yes? And?
99.999% of people's comparative advantage is not in their writing ability.
Add to this that learning to write to a quality level required for effective, efficient communication, is a far higher burden to place on someone, than the level of fluency required for basic exchange of information; especially for people for whom English (or whatever language is being used) is a second language.
Taken together, this implies that for most people, learning to write well—i.e. learning the skill that, having possessed it, would make you into a competent essayist—would be a waste of time. Just like learning abstract mathematics would be a waste of time. (And I say that as a professional author!)
Most people intuitively know that learning to write more effectively isn't the best use of their time, and so most people don't try.
This "hack" is far less costly, and therefore far more likely to get adopted by these people, and therefore far more likely to actually improve the experience of reading the average communication in a large software project (which tends to involve people of varying communication levels.)
I abhor the idea that learning to communicate effectively is "a waste of time." Rather than try to avoid learning an incredibly useful skill, people who CAN'T communicate effectively could use code review as a learning/skill building opportunity.
If I switch "communicate," with "program," do you still think it's a good argument that people shouldn't obtain any more programming skill than the most rudimentary level, because it would be a waste of time?
Conversely, I think clear communication will probably help you write better, clearer, more concise code.
> Do you still think it's a good argument that people shouldn't obtain any more programming skill than the most rudimentary level, because it would be a waste of time?
...if programming isn't their comparative advantage, then yes. A project manager, or a salesman, should not spend their time learning to code. It's not the most valuable thing they could be doing to increase their ability to do their own job.
> I think clear communication will probably help you write better, clearer, more concise code.
You realize that communication occurs in a specific language, and the problem is often more to do with lack of knowledge of the language the communication is occurring in, right?
Someone might be extremely eloquent in e.g. Spanish, but that doesn't mean they're going to be able to communicate effectively in English. But that also doesn't mean that they aren't going to be able to write good, clear, concise code. They already know how to communicate well; they already have the meta-skill that results in both good writing and good code. They just don't have the specific skill of arranging powerful, pithy words of English to concisely represent a complex concept.
Most gains in productivity have come from simplifying or automating away common tasks:
* Text editors spell-check your writing (just put more care into your writing!)
* Garbage-collected runtimes,or compile-time memory proofs prevent common memory errors (just write your C more carefully!)
* Machinery and power tools allow one to perform the same physical tasks more quickly (just put your back into it!)
* Agriculture allows one more reliable sources of nutrition & calories (just get good at hunting & gathering!)
Humans have a finite amount of "thought and care" to put into things. If there's a framework that allows for more rapid and reliable software development, with less thought and care spent, that's great. That thought & care can go into something more productive.
>This is just a hack to the problem that most people can’t write
But that is exactly what we need! It will always be easier to change the computers than to change the people. If we could replace all of the people with clones of von Neumann, most development practices (and UX) research would become irrelevant.
Just put some thought and care into the comments.