Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Improper use of the word 'had' in articles

Threaded View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008

    Default Improper use of the word 'had' in articles

    Dear Phoronix,

    Reading some of your articles, I've noticed that you use the word had in many places where it's either clumsy or flat out wrong.

    See two examples, from today and yesterday.

    Great Linux Innovations Of 2008

    As developers voiced concerns over TTM and its complicated API, the Intel team led by Keith Packard had announced GEM, or the Graphics Execution Manager.
    had adds absolutely nothing to that sentence. had is only useful there if the sentence began with something like By the time that.

    AMD Releases Open-Source R600/700 3D Code

    Just hours before the start of FOSDEM 2008 in late February, AMD had released their R500 3D programming documentation.
    Again, it's clumsy at best, and wholly unnecessary.

    I thought I was just going to have two examples, but while looking for one that I specifically remembered, I found some more.

    From the previous article.

    The first revision added in just four pages while the second had detailed their command processor.
    Two weeks after the initial R500 3D documentation release, AMD had released an R300 3D register guide.
    Again, entirely superfluous and annoying to read.

    It looks like three out of every four hads in your articles are not needed. They also make articles annoying to read (Yes, annoying beyond all the flashing adds, self referencing links, terrible bar graphs and multi-page articles.)

    Surely you don't talk like that. Similarly, it doesn't sound good written.
    Last edited by mattst88; 12-30-2008 at 12:03 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts