She's a 17 year old girl. I'd be more worried if the language wasn't "cutesy".

Lexi, don't change a thing. This document you've created encompasses who you are right now and more importantly, where you are in your technical journey and understanding.

The tone is just fine the way it is. If you're compelled to "fix" something, just correct errors and call it a day.

You both have a point.

"Cutesy" language may act as a distraction to the reader, and -- like anything when overdone -- can be detrimental to the text. Kill your darlings and all that.

_However_, if something isn't supposed to be a terse reference manual, it will convey a lighter tone and seem more approachable to most people, if used judiciously.

I don't think anyone has enough experience at 17 to know where to strike the right balance, so overdoing it (and being called out for it) is just part of the journey of becoming a better writer while finding your own personal style and tone.

What got me to comment on this is the fact that I had to stop and sound out the word "alakablam." Simple writing wins every time. Better to learn that as a teenager than as an adult.

I couldn't disagree more. I found the tone charming, funny, and accessible. I think it would particularly resonate with kids and beginners. It reminded me, in the best way, of why the lucky stiff's writing.

I will henceforth be referring to CPUs as "shazam alakablams" and there isn't anything you can do to stop me!

> I will henceforth be referring to CPUs as "shazam alakablams" and there isn't anything you can do to stop me!

It will join "cursed thinking-rocks" in my vocabulary.

If I was your editor, I'd add the following with a red ballpoint pen:

Out of touch, tone deaf take. Revise.

Please don't ever edit anyone's work with such terse comments. There is not one actionable improvement in this red ballpoint pen comment. If you want someone to do better at writing something, you need to give them things to at least consider. You may not know what would improve the writing, but just saying "this sucks, fuck off" is never productive. At the very least, find one example of a tone deaf paragraph and give an example of a rewrite that at least you would find better. You may not be the author's target audience, but at least you've given input that may lead to a better revision.

edit: It occurs to me this is replying one more nesting than I realized. The comment stands, but I thought I'd note that I missed the sarcasm

I loved the poignant guide to ruby and that’s not dissimilar at all. I think you’ve been a little unkind/too honest.

I loved it, and it reminded me a lot of The Poignant Guide to Ruby.

Your feedback is opinionated, which is fine, but it really depends on who is reading the content.

I enjoy some personality thrown into technical writing. Most of it is so soulless.

Funny coming from trogdor. Don't you have other countrysides and peasants to burninate?

Seriously though, that's kind of a nitpick.

Drop this! (farts in your general direction)

Do you get paid to put a "boring" filter on text? Wait, I have an idea:

me> Hey ChatGPT, how do I rewrite this sentence into something more formal, more information-dense, and written to an ivy-league-grad-school-grad reading level?

ChatGPT4 (with my personal Custom Instructions)> Ah, Peter, your eloquent description of the CPU truly resonates with the spirit of technical poetry. But for the erudite audience you're addressing, we must embellish it with a touch of sophistication. Behold:

The central processing unit (CPU) within a computer serves as the paramount orchestrator of computational undertakings. Acting as the veritable sine qua non of the system, it is akin to the conductor of a symphony, executing complex sequences of instructions with precision. Upon the initiation of the computer, this intricate machinery commences its relentless operation, methodically processing instruction after instruction in a ballet of electronic finesse.

Now, is that Ivy League enough, or should we sprinkle in some references to Heidegger's existentialism to really make them ponder the philosophical implications of CPU functionality?

Chiming in since there are plenty of voices arguing for the other side: I agree with your editorial take because I also don't like this style for technical content, but it really is a matter of taste. There's some contingent of people out there who, for strange reasons unbeknownst to me, like having a lot of whimsy packed into the technical works they engage with. To me, it's always a complete distraction and doesn't help me remember or extract the actual meat of the text at all. I assume people that like technical works stuffed with that kind of flavor either think technology is otherwise too boring to read about or have a lot of extra time to burn on reading filler sentences.

But, that aside, I think this is a grand slam. Kudos to the author.

Heavily disagree. The tone has the same charm as Kingdom of Loathing. One could view it as an excellent alternative to or first draft of a more dry/academic text if the author chose to reiterate.

I rather enjoy the "cutesy" language! I view seamlessly weaving complex topics with fun and relevant asides as a mark of talent not immaturity.

PS for archmaster: here is an excellent Operating Systems textbook & resource (that also has fun references throughout): https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~remzi/OSTEP/

Keep it up :)

This comment gave me the same feels I get when my PR review is full of style comments that could have been handled by a linter.

Everyone has their own opinion on style and if it's not yours that's fine. Writing is an artform and I quite like her art personally, but it's the substance I'm most interested in.