Description
This is probably a rather subjective issue with a high potential for bikeshedding. Feel free to close it if deemed out of scope.
(Perceived) problem description
The language used in the book strikes me as wooden and awkward at times. The first page (or so) of chapter 1 contains several examples of sentences that I believe could benefit from more extensive subediting. I emphasise that I provide these examples only to help judge the relevance of this issue I am raising and not to disparage the author(s) in any way.
This book is my attempt to help you on your personal journey for understanding and exploring the exciting world of Zig.
"for" is the wrong preposition here, perhaps no preposition is best, as "to" would not work with "exploring [...]"
I assume you have previous experience with some programming language in this book
"in this book" is placed at the end of the sentence, seemingly referring to "other programming languages" that are present in the book, which is obviously not the intended interpretation and breaks the concentration of the reader, making for unpleasant reading.
So, if you have experience with Python, or Javascript, for example, it will be fine.
Very subjective, but the many commas and use of "it" feel unnatural.
In the author’s personal interpretation, Zig is tightly connected with “less is more”.
The meaning is clear, but IMO "In the author's view" or a synonym sounds better. "[C]onnected with [principles]" sounds stilted as well: "closely follows [the principle of]" or similar might be preferrable.
This philosophy becomes clear with the following phrase from the official website of Zig:
"becomes clear with" is better expressed with something like "is clearly seen in" or "is evident from" etc.
English is not my native language and I put a lot of effort into training myself to self-correct my English to the best of my ability, and while reading the book I cannot keep myself from getting distracted by the language use. Making progress is quite a challenge. Perhaps this does not apply to native speakers or less obsessively pedantic students of English.
Given how Zig does not have an official introductory guide like e.g. the Rust book, this book's completeness and open-source nature make it seem to be the go-to resource for learning Zig. The focus on project-based learning rather than a dry listing of Zig's features with examples also set it apart from the only other Zig book I could find.
My fear is that the (IMHO) noticable non-standard English used in the book might turn away potential readers who have better manners than I do, so I wanted to raise this issue anyway to provide a place for proper discussion.
Preferred strategy
- To what extent do other readers experience this?
- If this is deemed in need of attention, what would be the best way to proceed? PRs?
I noticed several PRs with language corrections and a note by the main maintainer indicating he is slowly processing the feedback. Maybe more PRs of this kind would only duplicate labour?
- Would a separate fork of the repository to concentrate voluntary subediting efforts be productive? How would this interact with @pedropark99's copyright?
Workflow suggestions
A native (or comparable) speaker with professional subediting experience would be ideal, but probably not feasible for an open-source project.
LLMs and other ML stuff are unreliable, but could perhaps eliminate a lot of menial labour if e.g. somebody generates one or more rephrased drafts that can then be compared with the original and subedited by an actual writer.
Language corpi like e.g. the British National Corpus or Google Ngram Viewer might be useful for double-checking word collocations and the like, but they are not open-source and seem to require registration.
There are (proprietary) services available with the express intention to aid non-natives in writing English. I only know of https://ludwig.guru/ (which I have no experience with). Ludwig in particular seems to rely on scientific publications as reference material for "proper" English, which I find a highly questionable decision.
Politics
I wanted to add that I strongly dislike the fact that access to the "neutral international language" is so unfairly divided between a minority of native speakers – who get it for free and always define the standard – and the rest of the global population – who need years of (expensive) education to even hope to approximate the natives. I deplore that I am only enforcing this status quo right now.