In the spectrum of HN consciousness there's a large chunk of rule-bound literalism. Part of the work of this community is for that to breathe a little and not need to impose itself everywhere. Then everything works better and life becomes more sparkly.
I get enough of this from work, thanks. There's a fine line between decoding twee whimsy and billable hours that most of these submissions stomp past obliviously.
The first rule of writing is: respect your reader's time (or else they won't read you). I'm all for not taking things to seriously, but if I have to spend 5 minutes to work out if this is an entertaining flight of fancy that I might just learn something from, or an untargeted waste of marketing budget, then I'm going to Have Opinions that I want to Share Online.
That's not my point at all: I work in software, so I love to stare at some cryptic message and mutter and make notes. But when I uncover the answer is "Be sure to drink your Ovaltine", then I'll feel ripped off.
I keep seeing product announcements using this technique of dressing it up in twisty little language, as if they're afraid that what they're saying isn't interesting enough to stand on its own. They slap on the appearance of entertainment, without considering how well it fits with their message (prioritising form over function).
why's (poignant) Guide to Ruby is a fantastic example of how to do it right: the whimsy doesn't detract from the message, but helps frame it and gives the right context for the reader to build the mental model of programming that _why intended to convey.
We probably assigned this post to different buckets but I agree with you that both buckets exist.
> if I have to spend 5 minutes to work out if this is […] an untargeted waste of marketing budget, then I'm going to [write a comment about how I wish people would stop doing it]*
I'll try being clear next time.