71–80 of 154 posts
I frequently copy and paste a word into Google just to get the correction auto suggested and auto searched for, whereas Apple operating systems will know it is spelled wrong as an unrecognized word but offer no suggestions
Really, there are two components to a modern spell checker. First, identify the words that are misspelled. Second, offering (good) corrections. This article is really talking about how hard even the first task was when memory was scarce. Offering good suggestions is still non-trivial.
However, my experience is exactly what you described. I got it to identify / highlight misspelled words in an afternoon, but then I came to suggesting the correction and things got hairy quick.
Also, my spell checker wasn't even "smart" (aware of semantics, context, homophones, etc).
Google's spell checker still is a major feat of software engineering ;-) It must handle every language, handle new words constantly being coined, have low enough latency and high enough throughput to run it on every web search. (Well, caching probably solves 2/3 of traffic.)
I find googles spell checking to be the best in the world. Google search is where I go when local spell checkers failed.
Here's an article that people might be interested in. It gives a bit more detail: https://web.archive.org/web/20100706052342/http://www.spelli... I'm particularly interested in this one, and I'm curious about how useful something like this would be to use. > The second does not use a dictionary at all (Morris & Cherry 1975). Like the previous method, it divides the text into trigrams, but it creates a table of these,…
Consider that the most often typo I make is "ture" for "true", and "flase" for "false", I'd say this isn't going to catch some common mistakes.
Nooo.. For gods sake at least use a trie. This kind of thing makes me want to like “annoying” algorithm interview questions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider that the most often typo I make is "ture" for "true", and "flase" for "false", I'd say this isn't going to catch some common mistakes.
I have a bunch of iab in my vimrc for typos like that because I make them so often.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a bunch of iab in my vimrc for typos like that because I make them so often.
Care to share some? I use vim and have been meaning to try this for years
iab cosnt const
iab conts const
iab cnost const
iab costn const
iab retrun return
iab inclued include
iab inculed include
iab inlcude include
iab icnlude include
iab inculde includeThis is a rather bad article because it completely misses the real complexity of a spell checker. A spell checker is not simply a list of words, it's a way to check mistakes according to a standard and to point towards ways to fix these mistakes. This not reducible to a look-up in a hashtable. It requires taking into account some complicated things about the definition of a word and the context in which it is written…
That it can't even identify that it itself is a "spelling checker" illustrates the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Care to share some? I use vim and have been meaning to try this for years
this is an excerpt: iab cosnt const iab conts const iab cnost const iab costn const iab retrun return iab inclued include iab inculed include iab inlcude include iab icnlude include iab inculde include