(groan)
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Contradicted by this:
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/less-versus-fewer.aspx
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_vs._less
And this:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/less-or-fewer
And this:
http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/fewer-vs-l...
A quote from the last link: "The basic rule for precise use of 'less' and 'fewer' is simple (though we slip often). Use 'fewer' with countable, individual things, and 'less' with uncountable amounts, volumes, etc. So: 'I should drink less coffee,' but 'I should eat fewer doughnuts.'"
> 'Smaller keystrokes' is, in context, nonsensical.
Yes -- which is why I posted in the first place.