Comment by bermanoid | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bermanoid | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I can imagine this view is inviting for programmers, because it's easy to implement, but I doubt anyone else finds useful a definition that says there are no misspellings in "Their coming too sea if its reel."

I realize this is just a debate over a definition, so it's not very meaningful, but the fact is, you're on the wrong side of the common definition here. I just tested, and every spell checker that I just checked (Chrome, Firefox, MS Word, TextMate, TextEdit - perhaps some of these rely on the same underlying engine, I'm not sure?) accepts that sentence as not having a spelling error, so clearly there's some use for such a definition.

The grammar checkers, on the other hand, don't like it, but by changing "their" to "they're", they all accept it, despite the fact that it's still garbage. So don't overestimate how good "modern" spell checkers are...though there may be techniques to do a better job, they're not in common use, at least in the most common spell-checking contexts (which, lets be honest, pretty much means MS Word).

There is no question whatever: the sentence contains misspelled words. "They're" is misspelled as "Their", "to" as "too", "see" as "sea", etc.

There is also no non-words. It happens that today's spelling checkers are generally just non-word detectors. This doesn't mean that anyone defines "misspelled" to mean "misspelled in such a way that the result is not a word at all".

And yes, a non-word detector is still very useful, and it's much much easier to make than something that also determines reliably when words are misspelled in ways that produce other words, so there's lots of software out there (perhaps essentially all of it) that contains only a non-word detector.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to define "spelling checker" to include mere non-word detectors. Or for that matter non-common-word detectors. (I expect most spelling checkers will reject "hight", and very sensibly because if someone types that they probably meant "high" or "height" or something -- but it's a perfectly good word, albeit a rare and archaic one.) But there's no way it's correct to say that "sea" isn't misspelled in that sentence merely because the mistake happens to have produced something that's an English word.

"""I think it's perfectly reasonable to define "spelling checker" to include mere non-word detectors. """

Sure it is (reasonable).

You just cannot go around acting as if such a definition is already widespread, established in tech discussions, and followed by spell checkers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com