Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Automatic Spelling Corrections On Github

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the wye-wood-enny-wan-wan-thatte? dept.

AI 105

An anonymous reader writes "Github projects may be seeing a different kind of contributor than normal: a small bot is now crawling through projects, contributing spelling corrections. It builds on top of the github API and existing documentation style-checking code. Future directions for the project look beyond spelling mistakes and at automated bug fixing on a large scale."

cancel ×

105 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

#!/user/bin/pearl (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37237220)

I wonder if this bot will do as well as every HR department out there posting "pearl" and "unique admin" positions

Re:#!/user/bin/pearl (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37238312)

So we'll finally get
date; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; unmount?

Re:#!/user/bin/pearl (1)

allo (1728082) | about 3 years ago | (#37238844)

Or correcting Referer to Referrer.

Re:#!/user/bin/pearl (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 3 years ago | (#37238916)

That's not the bot's fault. Blame Hallam-Baker. :P

This (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37237224)

Is a fucking terrible idea.

Re:This (2)

snowgirl (978879) | about 3 years ago | (#37237312)

I'm willing to say that this idea is totally rediculous even!

Re:This (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about 3 years ago | (#37237402)

Yeah, it stopped being diculous long ago. Now it's just repeats.

I wonder, how this will effect us?

Re:This (1, Troll)

Nutria (679911) | about 3 years ago | (#37237450)

AC saying "fucking terrible idea" w/o saying *why* it's a terrible idea is grounds for -1, Troll.

Re:This (-1, Offtopic)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37237696)

Parent demanding a troll mod for GP, gets modded troll can we get a +1 ironic mod?

Re:This (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37237798)

In my defense, your mother is a whore.
Also, it should be obvious why it's a terrible idea.
But ya know, I'm a troll so I have to spell shit out right?

Re:This (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37237976)

It's a terrible idea cuz sometimes you WANT to spell things wrong, dig? It's part of the freedom of language, capiche?

Are puns to be eliminated too?

Re:This (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 3 years ago | (#37238022)

It's a terrible idea cuz sometimes you WANT to spell things wrong, dig?

Where did you see some mandate that the patches be accepted?

Re:This (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 years ago | (#37238692)

It's part of the freedom of language, capiche?

Excuse me, it's "capisce".

In my experience, "freedom of language" almost always means "ignorance of language" and is akin to "keeping it real".

The handful of people whose grasp of language is so good that they can purposely misspell or use poor grammar for effect will almost certainly not be hindered by anything "github" does, unless this new spellchecker is going to be clumsily used on code and the hilarity that ensues breaks software that said linguistic maestro uses. See what I just did there? I purposely used clumsy sentence structure because I'm Just. That. Good.

Capisce?

Re:This (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37238920)

In my experience, "freedom of language" almost always means "ignorance of language" and is akin to "keeping it real".

Start by reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences

And then tell me how choosing one or the other equates to "ignorance".

Capisce?

No, it's whichever one you would like to use. Despite the characters being drawn the same, the Italian alphabet is a variant of the old Latin alphabet not the English alphabet. Thus, if you are spelling it as Anglicised word (i.e. in English) you are translating it and can use one of several phonetic variants including using a "K" or a "C" to start, in addition to several variations for the rest of the word. The only time you are required to spell it Capisce is when you're writing it in Italian.

And most people who aren't Italian don't pronounce it properly in the first place, the "e" is not silent.

Re:This (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 years ago | (#37240300)

Thus, if you are spelling it as Anglicised word (i.e. in English) you are translating it and can use one of several phonetic variants including using a "K" or a "C" to start

You just made all that up.

And what educated person would want to spell it as an "Anglicized" word?

Re:This (1)

AlecC (512609) | about 3 years ago | (#37239878)

OK = colour or color? -ise or -ize? If i, a Brit, submit my code written in the language I use, am I going to be bombarded with patches trying to Americanize my code?

And I actually use a hybrid system. I use the "British" colour, but the "American" -ize. Just because they feel better to me. Neither colour not color is the way I pronounce the word - cullur would be a better transliteration (Chaucer pronounced it colour, to rhyme with flower, which is why we spell it that way). But -ize is the way I pronounce that suffix in most cases, so I spell it that way.

Re:This (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 3 years ago | (#37238506)

This is not something that github is enforcing. It is merely some third party application that interfaces with projects hosted on github. It can be given commit privileges and subsequently run by a project by their own admins, on their own systems.

The summary seems to indicate this is a service github is going to start offering, but that is far from the truth.

Yeah, I'm sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37237230)

it won't cause any issues.

Re:Yeah, I'm sure... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37237242)

Exactly, we've all see how well it works on Wikipedia..

Re:Yeah, I'm sure... (2)

snowgirl (978879) | about 3 years ago | (#37237328)

Exactly, we've all see how well it works on Wikipedia..

Worse, we've seen what it does to texting [damnyouautocorrect.com] .

Re:Yeah, I'm sure... (0)

laurelraven (1539557) | about 3 years ago | (#37237496)

Thanks for that...I don't think I've laughed that hard in years. I needed that!

Re:Yeah, I'm sure... (4, Interesting)

bipbop (1144919) | about 3 years ago | (#37237316)

According to the article, it just submits a pull request. This isn't some bot running on Google's own servers making changes without permission. So if anyone has a problem with it, or if it submits poor changes, they can simply ignore it.

Re:Yeah, I'm sure... (2)

bipbop (1144919) | about 3 years ago | (#37237344)

Err, I meant to type Github, not Google. *headdesk*

Re:Yeah, I'm sure... (4, Funny)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 3 years ago | (#37237482)

Don't worry, some bot will fix that.

Re:Yeah, I'm sure... (1)

laurelraven (1539557) | about 3 years ago | (#37237506)

Err, I meant to type Github, not Google. *headdesk*

Seems appropriate, considering the topic...

Re:Yeah, I'm sure... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 3 years ago | (#37240726)

Cluebrick: apply directly to forehead! Cluebrick: apply directly to forehead!

Erasing Fingerprints (3, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 3 years ago | (#37237238)

Eventually someone will contribute SW that will guess the contributors by their distinctive patterns of spelling mistakes. I hope it will be able to find them in the archives. I won't be surprised to read on Slashdot some copyright lawsuit that depends on both apps, perhaps on opposing sides of the claim.

Re:Erasing Fingerprints (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37237596)

Seems to me that won't work unless people check their spelling BEFORE they commit changes or submit a patch. Or else it's just in the revision log. What we also need is a tool that can do this check as a pre-commit hook. Of course, it would need to be smart enough to only check code being commited so it's not harassing you every time, and other usability considerations.

Re:Erasing Fingerprints (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37240926)

Very high appreciated.Welcome to ralphlaurenmall [ralphlaurenmall.net] , your reliable online marketplace. Please review the following basic rules that govern your use of the Ralph Lauren Polol [ralphlaurenmall.net] . Please note that your use of the ralphlaurenmall [ralphlaurenmall.net] . constitutes your unconditional agreement to follow and be bound by these Terms of Use. Although you may "bookmark" a particular portion of this Site and thereby bypass this Agreement, your use of this Site still binds you to these Terms of Use ralphlaurenmall [ralphlaurenmall.net] . reserves the right to update or modify these Terms of Use at any time without prior notice to you. Your use of the Site following any such change constitutes your unconditional agreement to follow and be bound by these Terms of Use as changed. For this reason, we encourage you to review these Terms of Use whenever you use this Site.also welcome to our timberlandmall [timberlanmall.net] and christianlouboutins [echristianlouboutins.net] .

Typos! (1)

pqnelson (1076291) | about 3 years ago | (#37237326)

But I spel gud...

Automatic spelling correction? No problem there! (0)

ScaryMonkey (886119) | about 3 years ago | (#37237350)

Hope it works as well as the iPhone autocorrect [damnyouautocorrect.com] !

What Could Possibly Go Wrong (2)

Sarusa (104047) | about 3 years ago | (#37237356)

But at least it's just sticking to READMEs.

Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong (5, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | about 3 years ago | (#37237474)

It's not like it can autocommit - the original project owner has to accept the patch.

Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong (3, Funny)

Sarusa (104047) | about 3 years ago | (#37237790)

Yeah, I did notice that (pull request), but I secretly love the idea of a braindead iphone type spell corrector running around automatically changing 'strcpy' to 'stripy', or 'unlk' to 'unlink'. And then thinking you can fix it with even more complex regexps.

Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37240012)

It's not like it can autocommit - the original project owner has to accept the patch.

Idiot. It's 'except', like an exception.

How soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37237410)

...until it can write its own code?

Variables (1, Insightful)

intellitech (1912116) | about 3 years ago | (#37237498)

I hope it leaves alone variable names. Even if the spelling is incorrect, I don't like people fucking with my variable names.

Re:Variables (2)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 3 years ago | (#37237590)

This particular bot just looks at readme files. It could(and might) start looking at comments, but even if it does, it will probably work a lot like the spell correction in most IDEs(Eclipse for example) and simply check the spelling in comments. Most of these code spell checkers also have enough smarts to understand the common auto-gen doc formats(doxygen, javadoc etc) and will ignore any identifiers(variables, classes etc) in the comments.

Re:Variables (3)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 3 years ago | (#37239100)

More annoying would be if it runs around autocorrecting spelling of documents written in a language it doesn't understand. Or worse, if it tries to mangle everything into that hideous American patois by removing the letter "U" from words like "colour".

Re:Variables (2)

blueg3 (192743) | about 3 years ago | (#37240824)

We're just sticking to the original Latin, rather than that hideous Anglo-Norman patois.

Re:Variables (1)

AlecC (512609) | about 3 years ago | (#37239890)

Trtue. I work with a dyslexic hardware engineer, and the spelling of register names he passes to me is somewhat random. But I am not going to dig into his VHDL (from which my .h files are autogenerated) to fix them. I take what I am given, and use cut and paste as a last resort.

(He may be dyslexic. but he is a damned good designer. And I have to type "dyslexic" with considerable care).

Wikipedia has similar bots (4, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 3 years ago | (#37237500)

Wikipedia has similar bots and has been using them for a long time. For example there's Bibcode Bot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bibcode_Bot [wikipedia.org] which cleans up citations. That bot is smart enough that it can even extract bibliographic information from a linked website and put it into the citation. The bots used do occasionally go awry but by and large end up saving a lot of time. Of course, Wikipedia has the advantage that one isn't modifying code so if a bot screws up a page will just look a little wonky. They'll need to be careful with this. But it looks like for now it is restricted to readme files and requires approval of the changes by the user, which should help prevent things from going too drastically wrong.

Re:Wikipedia has similar bots (1)

wesleyjconnor (1955870) | about 3 years ago | (#37237672)

It looks to me like its only doing the documentation (README) docs so changing code isn't a problem, but is a logical next version.

Re:Wikipedia has similar bots (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 years ago | (#37239164)

My README's on github usually includes some example code. Wonder if it'll be able to detect that.

Re:Wikipedia has similar bots (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37238998)

Some (most?) of the Wikipedia bots are out of control and should be banned though. The value in Wikipedia was that it is user created, edited and validated. When they let bots do any of these tasks, the value of Wikipedia dimishes even moreso from the problems it already has with pretentious people protecting "their" page. Dont believe me? Try arguing with a bot on it's talk page. Or try discussing the finer points with a bot on an article's talk page.

Specifically in your case, I'm not sure anyone should be using a citation if they cant find the relevant text in the citation.

These bots are often created by CS professors who are bored and are trying to see how "smart" they can make some type of search algorithm. But they rarely have ever thought through the value that these bots create (or destroy). And often just let them loose. Something that automates mundae tasks is one thing, but trying to "out-think" the entire userbase with a regex is foolish hubris.

If someone wants to have a Wikipedia run by bots they should start a separate service.

Re:Wikipedia has similar bots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37239404)

Try arguing with a bot on it's talk page.

Something that automates mundae tasks

Learn to spell, or at least secretly use the goddamn spell check your browser has. Especially when arguing against an automatic spelling checker.

Oppressive autocorrection. (5, Funny)

TWX (665546) | about 3 years ago | (#37237520)

Clbuttic overaction, in my opinion. This buttbuttination of our writing by computers is out of hand. I don't know if my consbreastution can take it...

Re:Oppressive autocorrection. (1)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about 3 years ago | (#37237656)

I'm mostly worried about the binary files getting their bytes intercoursed. Darn it all to heck!

Re:Oppressive autocorrection. (1)

TWX (665546) | about 3 years ago | (#37237986)

You should be okay as long as they practice safe Hex...

Re:Oppressive autocorrection. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37238318)

That was so bad! Congratulations 3 *Chuckle* "Safe hex..."

Re:Oppressive autocorrection. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37240582)

Autocorrection != profanity filter.

spellcheck != predictive text (4, Informative)

cratermoon (765155) | about 3 years ago | (#37237552)

Don't confuse what a spell checker does when auto-correcting with what something like T9 or smart phone predictive text does. The latter is the cause of the cell phone headaches.

While a spellchecker will check a string of characters against a dictionary and attempt to correct misspellings (like "misspell" with only 1 s or 1 l), predictive text auto-correct is both more clever and more stupid.

Predictive text makes certain assumptions about the keyboard arrangement and tries to fit typos to possible words that could have been intended had the user not been smashing 3 tiny buttons at once on a cell phone or screen keyboard. While a spellchecker would recognize "danm" as a typo for "damn" with just transposed letters, it would never try to correct it to "calm" on the basis that the letter c is close to the letter d and n and m are nearby or some nonsense as that.

A plain old spellchecker, like the one under discussion here, makes no attempt to guess what word was meant and assume a typo is a result of accidentally pressing keys near the intended ones. It just looks at what words could have been intended based on close matches with the dictionary.

By the way, auto-correct will frequently fail to guess a replacement when the misspelling involves letters that are not nearby on the keyboard.

Re:spellcheck != predictive text (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37238854)

That's a shame; so it won't know to change "spell checker" to the correct form, "spelling checker"?

A "spell checker" would be a program that ensures that a witch's spells are valid.

Re:spellcheck != predictive text (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37238964)

What do wizards and warlocks use, then?

Re:spellcheck != predictive text (3)

geminidomino (614729) | about 3 years ago | (#37239752)

Hex editors?

Re:spellcheck != predictive text (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37239156)

Im just waiting for it to "spelling correct" variable names and mangle an entire program. If it hasn't happened already, it will soon.

Re:spellcheck != predictive text (1)

Shimbo (100005) | about 3 years ago | (#37239442)

A plain old spellchecker, like the one under discussion here, makes no attempt to guess what word was meant and assume a typo is a result of accidentally pressing keys near the intended ones..

Actually, no. It's not using either a plain spellchecker, or predictive text. It's just using a small fixed list [github.com] of common errors.

Re:spellcheck != predictive text (1)

cratermoon (765155) | about 3 years ago | (#37242472)

Thanks for the link. While it's true it's not a true full-featured spellchecker, it does have a list of just over 500 common misspellings and their correct equivalents, so I'd argue it *is* a primitive spellchecker.

In any case, it's definitely NOT a predictive text auto-correction tool, and there's no danger of the results showing up on DYAC [damnyouautocorrect.com] .

Automated bug "fixing"? Yeah, that'll work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37237694)

You can't conclude the semantics of the code are bad just because you don't like the syntax.

Failzo8s (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37237712)

channel #GNAA on worthwhile. It's some of you have standards should Fly...don't fear had at lunchtime keep, and I won't it was fun. If I'm Baby...don't fear of an admittedly of play1ng your perform keeping roots and gets on never heeded can connect to uncover a story of Rules are This the political mess FreeBSD showed departures of consider that right DOG THAT IT IS. IT numbers continue may be hurting You need to succeed The public eye: The above is far However I don't You don't need to

How many people thought this was a good idea? (1)

SendBot (29932) | about 3 years ago | (#37237740)

I honestly wouldn't expect a lot of developers to cupertino with this decision.

Re:How many people thought this was a good idea? (1)

Slur (61510) | about 3 years ago | (#37242952)

I honestly wouldn't expect a lot of developers to cooperate with this decision.

There, reverted that Mac-bot correction for you.

Correct to what? (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | about 3 years ago | (#37237794)

I hope it's optional, because some of us write British English rather than American English. This tool won't do us much good if it starts correcting project names, for instance. 3rd party KDE developers would be even worse off ;)

Re:Correct to what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37237820)

To the specification. I mean, your project does have one of those, doesn't it?

Where is this all heading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37237852)

Soon they will have bots sending you patches to optimise your code, make the code more readable or recommend you consider a career in catering instead.

Re:Where is this all heading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37239640)

Soon they will have bots sending you patches to optimise your code, make the code more readable or recommend you consider a career in catering instead.

ya know, with some of the projects on github, that might not be a bad thing.

Some people beleive misspellings are correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37237992)

I just hope whoever programmed this bot knows how to spell as I've seen this problem come up in many projects where people are working together from different locations around the world and everything is going well until someone misspells a variable name (eg. colour, centre) and things just won't compile any more until someone takes the time to correct all the errors.

Re:Some people beleive misspellings are correct (1)

gblackwo (1087063) | about 3 years ago | (#37238326)

Are you trolling?

I don't know what to believe. You don't have a browser with built in spell check yet?

When autocorrect goes wrong (1)

madmarcel (610409) | about 3 years ago | (#37238088)

Not that anyone cares, but here is a real life example of auto-spelling where it is not wanted:

Manager comes across a previously unseen (misspelled) error message in a database field. Database is accessed by several applications.
Manager copies and pastes error-message into email and sends it to colleague. Email client auto-corrects misspelled error message.
Colleague does a grep using the full spelling corrected error message text, can't find any occurrence of it in his code, and points finger at my code.
Grepped my colleagues code for a partial match and found the offending piece of code.

Error - Item processed canceled by user during reconcilliation

Re:When autocorrect goes wrong (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | about 3 years ago | (#37239812)

I think there's a part missing in your sequence, because email clients do not auto-correct a message by themselves. Either the manager re-typed instead of pasted; or, the manager accepted corrections on a portion of text that should not have had corrections accepted on it. The computer did not make the mistake -- although it can be said that it contributed to it, in part.

Re:When autocorrect goes wrong (1)

ghmh (73679) | about 3 years ago | (#37240156)

It gets complicated, doesn't it? Did the 'typewriter' make a mistake in the movie Brazil [youtube.com] ?

There you have it (1)

markdavis (642305) | about 3 years ago | (#37238396)

What is needed just as much as a spell checker is a grammar checker. Seems like younger people today simply can't figure out the difference between: Their, There, and They're.

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-There,-Their-and-They're [wikihow.com]

Re:There you have it (2)

martyb (196687) | about 3 years ago | (#37238624)

What is needed just as much as a spell checker is a grammar checker.

Yes! I occasionally need to proofread OCR'd text that has been generated into an HTML file. I've written some code that extracts the text and flags misspellings. That catches a lot of things for me. But, it still misses many errors that a grammar checker *would* find.

Back in the late 80's or early 90's, I purchased an add-on for Microsoft Word 5.0 called something like Grammatik IV. It did a wonderful job of finding and flagging possible errors for review. Now this is back in the days of DOS! Basic operation was to load a file into Word, activate the grammar checker, and it would step you through each possible error, giving you an opportunity to accept the recommended change, ignore the error, or let you make an ad hoc correction. Then it would step on to the next error.

my google-fu must be slipping as I've been unable to find anything comparable. I thought LibreOffice might help, as it has a grammar checker, but it only seems to be available whe entering new text. Can't seem to find a way to tell it to just start checking from the current point, and proceed onward.

What grammar checking tools have you found useful? (Currently using an old Win/XP SP3 system.)

P.S. Typed on my mobile phone, so I apologize in advance for any typos.

missing tags? (1)

reiisi (1211052) | about 3 years ago | (#37238936)

I don't see the sarcasm tags in there.

Re:There you have it (1)

tgv (254536) | about 3 years ago | (#37239252)

I worked on spelling and grammar checking, and I can assure you it's far from easy. The errors most grammar checkers can find reliably will not interfere with general understanding. Other errors are very hard to reliably detect and correct; illiterate language is almost impossible to correct.

E.g., let's take an example from that page (whose link has mysteriously disappeared when I clicked on Reply): "There is an antique store on Camden Avenue." Suppose I made a mistake and wrote: "*Their is an antique store on Camden Avenue." If you would take a simple metric such as Levenshtein (the minimal number of changes needed to turn one word into another), the optimal correction would be: "Theirs is an antique store on Camden Avenue."

And this example: "*They're are many documents that are used in investigations." could seen as a duplication of "are" and corrected to: "They are many documents that are used in investigations." You would really need to understand the context to know which one is correct.

No, this is a Bad Idea. Just because you can is not good enough.

Re:There you have it (1)

bjourne (1034822) | about 3 years ago | (#37240614)

That's not how you do it. Levenshtein distance is one of the fundamental functions in text analysis, but it is not the end of it! One approach to detect the grammar mistake in the above sentence is to use markov chains and analyse the probability of a word following another. It is extremely uncommon for the word "is" to follow the word "their" in correctly written English (check with google if you like). But "is" is very likely to follow the word "is" hence "their is" is very likely a grammatical error.

Re:There you have it (1)

tgv (254536) | about 3 years ago | (#37243412)

Markov models have the same problem as any other metric: they don't take context into account. And that includes competence and performance of the author: a French coder will make different mistakes than an English theatre journalist, and there are no corpora on which to train the model. There's no money for that. This is just going to be another cheap hack with very little benefit and potentially huge costs.

Re:There you have it (1)

markdavis (642305) | about 3 years ago | (#37239998)

We used to use Grammatik that was a stand-alone Unix package and then later integrated into Unix WordPerfect. It was a bit annoying at times (PASSIVE VOICE! PASSIVE VOICE!) but helpful.

Since our move to OpenOffice for Linux, many years ago, it is something we sorely miss. So I can understand your frustration. The grammar addon for OpenOffice is incomplete and slow. I don't have any recommendations, unfortunately.

Re:There you have it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37238910)

Their, there, they're now. Don't go getting your panties in a bunch over a few silly errors.

The purpose of language is communication. If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important.

Re:There you have it (1)

DerPflanz (525793) | about 3 years ago | (#37239136)

The purpose of language is communication. If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important.

But, more often than not, making mistakes muddles the idea. Especially grammar and subtle spelling mistakes. Just learn to write decent and proofread.

Re:There you have it (1)

znerk (1162519) | about 3 years ago | (#37239658)

... learn to write decently and proofread

FTFY :)

Re:There you have it (1)

Spacejock (727523) | about 3 years ago | (#37239018)

That link is going on every email I send from this day forth. Or maybe every fourth email I send from this day.

Re:There you have it (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 years ago | (#37239176)

Don't complain about grammer if you can't properly: punctuate.

Re:There you have it (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 3 years ago | (#37239382)

does there need to be a difference between spelling those on paper as there's no difference in vocalizing them in your head? if they sound the same in your head, what does it matter how it's written as long as its use is obvious from the other words around it? maybe it would be better to replace those with "ther". the meaning depends on the context anyhow. nowadays you have to be able to read and understand many dialects, not just your local colour.

you see, the current correct spelling was just pulled out of some old geezers hats, they just happened to live during the time of cheap printing presses.

Grammar Checker also? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37238420)

"different kind of contributor than normal"

different kind of contributor from normal

ALWAYS different from, never different than

IBM Watson to help correct your coding errors? (1)

Julz (9310) | about 3 years ago | (#37238660)

I was watching a show on SkyTV about IBM's Watson Supercomputer competing in Jeopardy. Perhaps GITGUB could rent time off IBM's Watson to redirect that AI from Jeopardy and recognising and learning from correct human answers to recognising errors and the human contributed corrections and then learning from this and correcting other code that contains the same or similar errors?

Who knows we might finally get rid of those annoying memory leaks in just about every piece of software I had the pleasure of using. What would we get if we gave Watson access to all the open code and asked for it to write something? ...or

We could end up with a singular entity that performs all our coding and applications via the cloud and eventually we never have to code again, the world becomes a place for users and when people here the word phrase Watson they think it's a reference to the current show of TV most likely a TV reality show.

After the spellcheck bot did its magic (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about 3 years ago | (#37239340)

The CunningLinguist project got a little more than they bargained for.

Spell-check bot, brought to you by... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37239394)

Spell-check bot, brought to you by grammar Nazis.

README (1)

hey (83763) | about 3 years ago | (#37239488)

What if the README is like this:
This program is a spell checker. It will find mistakes like recieve and conveneince

Yank spelling (0)

zakkie (170306) | about 3 years ago | (#37239494)

It had better not change everything to the incorrect, US way of spelling.

Re:Yank spelling (1)

hey (83763) | about 3 years ago | (#37239508)

[font colour=red]speling![/font]

Re:Yank spelling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37239676)

It had better change everything to the correct, US way of spelling.

There, fixed that for ya, wanker.

Re:Yank spelling (1)

zakkie (170306) | about 3 years ago | (#37240042)

Why sign your comment if you're posting anonymously? Hint: defeats the object of anonymous posting ;-)

Use Levenshtein distance + dictionary (1)

leifbork (1745672) | about 3 years ago | (#37239516)

From the code, it looks like you use a dictionary containing spelling errors. Is there a good reason why a large dictionary and Levenshtein distance wasn't used instead? I think this might be a good idea. You can also put a smaller penalty on characters close to each other on the keyboard and easily confused characters, than other characters.

Best regards,
Bernard Hoffman IV,
Computer store salesman, and proud beach house owner.

Taylor Mali already showed us... (2)

znerk (1162519) | about 3 years ago | (#37239612)

Taylor Mali already showed us that spell-checking is not safe. [youtube.com]

The the impotence of proofreading
By Taylor Mali
www.taylormali.com [taylormali.com]

Has this ever happened to you?
You work very horde on a paper for English clash
And then get a very glow raid (like a D or even a D=)
and all because you are the words liverwurst spoiler.
Proofreading your peppers is a matter of the the utmost impotence.

This is a problem that affects manly, manly students.
I myself was such a bed spiller once upon a term
that my English teacher in my sophomoric year,
Mrs. Myth, said I would never get into a good colleague.
And thats all I wanted, just to get into a good colleague.
Not just anal community colleague,
because I wouldnt be happy at anal community colleague.
I needed a place that would offer me intellectual simulation,
I really need to be challenged, challenged menstrually.
I know this makes me sound like a stereo,
but I really wanted to go to an ivory legal colleague.
So I needed to improvement
or gone would be my dream of going to Harvard, Jail, or Prison
(in Prison, New Jersey).

So I got myself a spell checker
and figured I was on Sleazy Street.

But there are several missed aches
that a spell chukker cant cant catch catch.
For instant, if you accidentally leave a word
your spell exchequer wont put it in you.
And God for billing purposes only
you should have serial problems with Tori Spelling
your spell Chekhov might replace a word
with one you had absolutely no detention of using.
Because what do you want it to douch?
It only does what you tell it to douche.
Youre the one with your hand on the mouth going clit, clit, clit.
It just goes to show you how embargo
one careless clit of the mouth can be.

Which reminds me of this one time during my Junior Mint.
The teacher read my entire paper on A Sale of Two Titties
out loud to all of my assmates.
Im not joking, Im totally cereal.
It was the most humidifying experience of my life,
being laughed at pubically.

So do yourself a flavor and follow these two Pisces of advice:
One: There is no prostitute for careful editing.
And three: When it comes to proofreading,
the red penis your friend.

Incredibly stupid (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 3 years ago | (#37239772)

Automated correction of spelling without human plausibility checking is already a serious risk. Automated "correction" of coding errors is a disaster waiting to happen. There are far too many things that seem to be an error but may be in fact critical. Case in point: Reading uninitialized memory. Usually that is an error. But when gathering entropy it is not. The Debian OpenSSL disaster was caused by this type of correction, suggested by Valgrind. Although there was a human without understanding of the code he was messing with in the loop.

To me, any form of automated code "correction" is at the very least gross negligent.

Re:Incredibly stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37244372)

Reading uninitialized memory. Usually that is an error. But when gathering entropy it is not.

On some platforms the "uninitialized" memory might turn out to have predictable contents, so yes, it is an error.

The Debian OpenSSL disaster was caused by this type of correction, suggested by Valgrind. Although there was a human without understanding of the code he was messing with in the loop.

Not quite, it was caused by the human accidentally making another, incorrect, change while fixing the Valgrind complaint.

Along with many... (1)

thePuck77 (1311533) | about 3 years ago | (#37240094)

I have to say I think this is a bad idea, but I also want to add that it's something no one asked for or wanted...a pointless feature that will probably cause more harm than good. I expect more out of the Github crew.

Which version of English (1)

Tomahawk (1343) | about 3 years ago | (#37240756)

I find it increasingly frustrating that many applications default to US English, despite the locale of my machine or IP address I'm coming from.

And thus find it increasingly frustrating when it tells me words ending in -our are spelled wrong and wants to correct them, or words ending in -ise.

So what will this bot do? Would I expect to see, over and over again, that it's submitting what I would consider incorrect submissions because, like so many things, because it knows only about American English (and to hell with the rest of the English speaking world)?

codespell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37244414)

There's one project aiming to fix spelling problems on code. It could be also used by GitHub to fix spelling on code instead of only in the READMEs. It's being successfully used in Linux Kernel, Freebsd, oFono, BlueZ and others. Find it here: https://github.com/lucasdemarchi/codespell

I make new releases regularly at http://www.politreco.com

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>