Edit description phrasing in brew-desc.rb
Edit description phrasing in brew-desc.rb

Edited phrasing of descriptions to make them more “glanceable”.  

I did this by fixing some inconsistencies.  In doing so, I also introduced some inconsistencies of my own—but IMO they are much less…I suppose “disruptive” is the word?  

I realize that’s an odd word to use, since we’re talking about short, one-line descriptions.  However, since this formula tends be used by people who are in “exploration mode” on the command line, I think it’s important.  

In particular, I’ll emphasize these changes:

- **Capitalization**.  If you’re talking about the protocol, it’s “SSH”.  If you’re talking about the program by its name, it’s “ssh”.
- **Leading/trailing spaces**.  Fixed a few leading and trailing spaces sprinkled throughout the descriptions.
- **Brevity.** A huge number of descriptions lead with “Tool for…” or “Utility to…”.  If I could delete this and find a concise rephrasing, I did. 
    - I did *not* do this when…:
        - A formula installed “tools” or “utilities”—plural.  In the former case, a single “tool” or “utility” usually installs a program with the same name as the formula itself.  On the other hand, when a single `brew install «formula»` results in multiple new commands, I left the description intact to explicitly communicate this.
        - I couldn’t come up with a suitable rewrite.
- **It’s “OS X”!**  Not “OSX”. Not “Mac OS X” (not for many years, anyway!).
- **Oxford comma.** This is a matter of personal preference, but I prefer the Oxford comma. It more closely resembles how people would read the text aloud—and (for me, at least) seems to read a little easier.  
- **Written in «language»**.  Where possible, I moved this from the beginning or middle of a description to the end, and put it after a semi-colon.  
    - __*Rationale:*__  Sometimes users *do* care what a particular tool is written in, so it’s information worth including.  But most of the time, people who read the description are wondering what a piece of software **is**, not what it’s written in.  Therefore, I put it at the end, so that *the first thing a person reads* is *what the software is*.
    - I did **not** do this when the description read, e.g., “A C++ library for performing…”.  That’s because it’s ambiguous whether this means the library is written in C++, or whether it’s merely intended for other C++ code.  (In other words, it could be “A C++ library” that’s written in C.  In this case, it would be inaccurate to say “written in C++” for the description.)

In general, I also tweaked phrasing here and there, if I thought it would “read easier”.  

----

I think that covers it.  Let me know if missed anything.

Thanks!
telemachus/homebrew-desc,telemachus/homebrew-desc,alexandregz/homebrew-desc,alexandregz/homebrew-desc