3 ms·
Online spell checkers are better along many axis. For example they can spell check names in the news and slang that's likely not in an offline dictionary
by greggman 10y ago
Online spell checkers are better along many axis. For example they can spell check names in the news and slang that's likely not in an offline dictionary
- icebraining 10y agoWhy can't you just add those names and slangs to the dictionary?
- dingo_bat 10y agoBecause an online service can dedicate 10TB of disk space to spell checking, while your laptop with a 512GB SSD won't like to store >100MB for the spellchecker.
- tamana 10y agoLook up "bloom filter" and the computer science of spellcheck. You are off by a factor of 1000 or more for cost of spellcheck
- AlexandrB 10y agoI think "the cloud" is making people forget how simple some common features actually are. The default assumption seems to be that it needs to be in the cloud because it's too hard to do locally.
- onion2k 10y agoIf you had 100Mb of data I strongly suspect it'd return too many false positives - the likelihood of a string being in there would be too high. A spellchecker isn't very useful if it knows "Donald Trumo" is a real name. For reference, the hunspell dictionary file used in apps like Libre Office and Firefox is about 400kb. That's effectively the whole of the English language.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoBesides the good points made by other commenters, I'll raise you another one: want to trade space? How about cutting out some of that fat modern software comes with? Change the configuration language from XML to JSON and you'll suddenly have space for 10 spellcheckers. Cut out that pointless high-resolution banner and you'll have space for 10 more.
- wtbob 10y ago> Change the configuration language from XML to JSON and you'll suddenly have space for 10 spellcheckers. Change it from JSON to YAML or canonical s-expressions and you'll have room for even more …
- gregmac 10y ago> spell check names in the news and slang Very useful features for writing code.