3 ms·
Very nice. This clearly takes a lot of inspiration from LingQ, but fixes some of LingQ's more glaring challenges such as letting you use a real dictionary, ins
by bunderbunder 3y ago
Very nice.
This clearly takes a lot of inspiration from LingQ, but fixes some of LingQ's more glaring challenges such as letting you use a real dictionary, instead of relying on definitions that were crowdsourced from other learners using the app. (And therefore full of quality problems an inaccuracies.) On the other hand, it sounds like some nice features aren't implemented yet, or maybe not even planned, so maybe LingQ is still a good option if you don't want to hassle with self-hosting a webapp or hunting down your own resources, and don't mind paying the subscription fee.
All in all, though, it looks very promising!
- barrell 3y agoI’d be curious to hear what niceties you feel LingQ has that it’s missing if you don’t mind sharing
- tenaf0 3y agoLast time I checked, it couldn’t handle expressions that are not just tokens one after the other. For example, German separable verbs. I tried fixing it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38915786 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38915786
- tenaf0 3y ago(Misunderstood the question, please ignore my above comment)
- bunderbunder 3y agoEasy importing of lessons from YouTube and Netflix, the built-in libraries of lessons, guidance on what content might be most appropriate to your current level based on known vocabulary, the mobile apps with playlists and audio player, things like that. (Disclaimer: I haven't actually used LinguaCafe, but am a longtime LingQ user, so I'm not really making a fair comparison. I know LingQ's feature set much, much better.)
- gstamp 3y agoImporting audio along with the text is a big one. Failing that some sort of TTS would be very useful.