From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Grammar checking Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 13:29:46 +0000 Message-ID: <87pm8p9hh1.fsf@localhost> References: <87355lqs4v.fsf@gmail.com> <838rfd2mmf.fsf@gnu.org> <87y1nd9j1q.fsf@localhost> <831ql52hhv.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="16866"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: relekarpayas@gmail.com, gregory@heytings.org, rms@gnu.org, m.eliachevitch@posteo.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 31 15:28:56 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1piEoG-0003yv-Qz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 15:28:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1piEnT-0007Ml-CU; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 09:28:03 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1piEnS-0007MX-Ap for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 09:28:02 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1piEnP-0007iw-6Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 09:28:02 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6842C2401B1 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 15:27:57 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1680269277; bh=jLOsSlSVSqaLCy4UAEkR+JOJeMY0niz+hJQQAkqzsxI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=WxIu+KTg/JrGWs89BLAg/tsf/yG4ljKfdPbcCBVyCM4nunW0RJ8vveMAZYp5icRnK 6KyPfEsmWrg/y/bm1Nr1s+JQRB5SAzhJ96rTY+pe+2mzX4vO2ddBAHOlENcj9H++kl 8aTxq3yTsY1FoQR0dTzSCqXz7BsKwy9XxZXZN4HA2rXR05fcVU96dZzaW7APw8rBdx 87KxxsvX/7MUJJHLLLR85Ip3tcv1JFBlmFlsTt/KTGs5RdSvbn/MqE6foOIvocbbVG UJmPWACs+WCZocF+l1Jy8QWBZeSsU3qN2nBHOwcHn6N6uSZR1zsCboCj7SETSiPyQs t/n3UmToXSKaw== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Pp1Lc0Zn5z6twS; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 15:27:49 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <831ql52hhv.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:304919 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> I am using it in real-life scenarios for authoring. >> LanguageTool the most sophisticated Libre grammar checker around, AFAIK. > > That's not enough, IMO. It should be good in absolute terms, not in > relative terms. Well. It is hard for me to judge in absolute terms. I can only compare with my own grammar checking by hand (Langtool is better), with feedback from others (no significant issues after using Langtool; but it does not tell much), and with Grammarly (it was still able to find some valid issues after Langtool). What would be the absolute benchmark to test "how good is Langtool"? >> It is not ideal and certainly miss various mistakes in comparison with >> proprietary tools like Grammarly, but still much, much better than ispell >> and other Libre grammar/style checkers I tried. > > Comparing grammar checking with spell-checking is not useful. They > are different technologies that are almost orthogonal. Grammar > checking can find spelling mistakes only by sheer luck, and the > reverse is not possible even by luck. Some style checkers claimed grammar checking as well, AFAIR. But I do not recall obvious libre alternatives to Langtool, which are also focused on grammar. >> That said, I had some success feeding buffer text to LanguageTool >> asynchronously - paragraph by paragraph. > > Feeding by paragraphs should be good enough, if it takes a few > seconds. Depending on the size of the paragraph it may or may not fit. Though using Langtool web server (can be run locally) should save the startup lag. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at