One of the best pieces of advice I learned in high school from an incredible English teacher: when doing technical, avoid "-ly" words entirely. It has always been solid advice and has rarely led me astray.
Following its own advice, “entirely” can be cut without loss of meaning. Considering the replies you’re getting, perhaps a better way to phrase it in the future would be:
> eschew "-ly" adverbs.
That way it’s clear you’re referring to a specific subset of adverbs.
I hope this isn’t the actual advice you were given. They are called adverbs.
The rule states "-ly" words because those words are often cruft or crutch words that can be removed. If the sentence can't stand on its own without that word, then the sentence probably doesn't belong in the body of technical writing.
Compare this with time-related adverbs, which generally provide chronological structure. Those are more relevant for technical writing.
So yes, avoid "-ly" words. Not adverbs in general. That was the advice given.
"The Python interpreter has a number of functions and types built into it that are always available." [1]
"Long option values can be split across multiple lines simply by indenting the continuation lines." [2]
Agree with your teacher in that the first one seems fine. [1] https://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html
"...that are clearly always available."
"...that are obviously available."
"...that are simply available."
These adverbs are not only redundant but their presence suggest that things are actually not clear, simple or obvious.
Never use "otherwordly" ph'nglui technical documentation, ngnah ymg' risk s̵͖͕͓̒̾̾ǘ̵̢̺͓͊́m̵̟͙̓̒̚m̴͉̠͖̈́͊͠o̸̞̺̻̾́̀n̵͖̻͓̓̔i̴̢͚͕̿̕͝n̴͇̞͎͒̀̚g̵̢̟͙̾̚͝ z̴̪̠̟̾̿͘a̸͇̞͙̔͌͛l̵̢̟̘͆̒g̴͓͔̀́̿ö̵̪̠́͑̓.̴̢͙̪́͝͠
C-h f butterfly