A Better Title Would Be 'Good and Correct German for Diploma and Doctoral Theses'

The title of the book “Technisches Schreiben: (nicht nur) für Informatiker” (Technical Writing: (not only) for Computer Scientists) is much too general. The author exclusively considers the academic side of computer science and also only the German language.

As the author states on p. 130, requirements definitions, specifications, program documentation, manuals, operating instructions, etc., are not within the scope of the book.

Consequently, the book is only of limited use for the everyday work of a computer scientist in industry. Large parts of the book are more about correct German and a style that is pleasing to the author.

The author takes a fairly strong position on “Americanisms.” For “Heap,” one should use “Halde” and for “Stack,” “Stapel.” My favorite word back then, when I was dealing with logic programming, was the Germanized version “unifizieren” (unify). According to the author, I should now only use this in the passive voice (p. 101).

As a professor, the author can certainly afford this standpoint, as he is unaware of the problems in the private sector.

I have now worked in projects as a management consultant for over 10 years (I won’t say “Consultant” now, because that’s an Americanism). In my experience, people higher up in the hierarchy—the managers responsible for the project (the “project owners” with the “business cases” and “responsibilities”)—are very receptive to “buzzwords.” If I, at 40+ years old, start translating most terms into German in a project, I see the danger of being considered outdated or people thinking I’m not up to date.

But perhaps this is also a “generational problem.” The author mentions many “fashionable words” that I previously considered good German, such as “in etwa” (roughly), “kein Problem” (no problem), and “deutlich” (clear/significant). Languages are subject to change, and personally, I don’t mind adopting words from English. I will continue to use stacks and heaps.

The book has a major weakness on the didactic side: only individual sentences or paragraphs are given as examples, rather than larger chapters or papers. Not a single example of a good technical article or a good diploma thesis is shown, nor is a link (yes, an Americanism) to one provided.

I have also read books on writing novels, e.g., “How to Write a Damn Good Novel” by James N. Frey, or on screenplays, e.g., “Writing Screenplays That Sell” by Michael Hauge. After reading these books, you at least have a starting point and know in which direction to continue working. You also know the novels or screenplays that the authors consider good and can get tips there. Art critics may be of the opinion that such step-by-step instructions cannot create artistically valuable works, but that is not the goal of technical writing anyway.

And therefore I am a little surprised that the reader does not get a step-by-step guide in Peter Rechenberg’s book on how to proceed when writing, what to look out for, etc. In the book, the author gives a lot of tips, but these are distributed throughout the individual chapters. A few important points are also highlighted as “lessons” (Lehren); unfortunately, there is no index or list containing all these “lessons.”

If you want to benefit from this book, you should therefore already have mastered the content-related basics of technical writing and have already read a few papers. Then you can also benefit from the author’s many tips, e.g., on simplifying nested sentences or avoiding puffery.

My suggestion for the title of the book is “Good and Correct German for Diploma and Doctoral Theses (that are graded by older professors).”

Peter Rechenberg
Technisches Schreiben: (nicht nur) für Informatiker
Hanser
2006