3 ms·

Maybe not exactly voice, but natural language UI is definitely the future. It would be awesome if I could talk to git and tell it to do exactly what I want in E

• andrewfong 9y ago
  It depends on the complexity and dangers of the command. Git actually seems like a very poor candidate for natural language. Consider: Legal documents initially began as natural language evaluated by very effective natural language processors (other people). Over time, as the edge cases and ambiguities built up, the language of law diverged to the point that legalese is hardly considered "natural" today.
  • rimliu 9y ago
    Natural language is very poor for anything requiring precision.
• otabdeveloper1 9y ago
  > It would be awesome if I could talk to git and tell it to do exactly what I want in English. Considering that even high-IQ native English speakers have huge, huge problems "just doing what you want", even after explicit and unambiguous instructions -- don't hold your breath. (Maybe after the flying moon car.)
• BjoernKW 9y ago
  I don't think that natural language is a useful interface for tools like Git. Natural language is inherently verbose and ambiguous. That's precisely what you don't want when using tools like that. Natural language has a low signal to noise ratio compared to explicit verbs and keywords. Git just has less than stellar usability when it comes to performing common actions. Most of that probably is intentional because on the other hand it affords you a great deal of flexibility. If you want to improve the usability of Git standard UI patterns like providing better keywords and shortcuts to frequently used features will suffice. It's just a matter of the design philosophy behind the tool.