spellchecking

[Kulmegil 1]

It's time for a non sharing/downloading F.R. this time. Apex 1.0.0 beta1 already implemented cool auto-resizing chat message boxes, and all I really miss is spellchecikng to decrease this nasty fast-typed mistakes. There are quite a few apps having spell check implemented already, I suggest looking at Miranda IM SpellChecker plugin code - should be easiest. Plugin is working great in Miranda, although it's still considered alpha (so future code synchr. with plugin could be necessary).

(100th post)

[Big Muscle 1]

Main purpose of DC is p2p (sharing), chat is only minor feature. SpellChecker would only decrease DC usability (higher memory usage, higher CPU usage etc.).

If there should be some spellchecker, it should be implemented as a plugin in hubsoft. For example, some czech hubs warn you via ChatBot if you make some grammatical mistake ;-)

[adrian_007 0]

this taks can even make a bot, ie in lua (Big Muscle idea)

[Kulmegil 1]

Main purpose of DC is p2p (sharing), chat is only minor feature. SpellChecker would only decrease DC usability (higher memory usage, higher CPU usage etc.).

If there should be some spellchecker, it should be implemented as a plugin in hubsoft. For example, some czech hubs warn you via ChatBot if you make some grammatical mistake ;-)

I would say 90% is for P2P and 10% for chat when I was starting. But today it's 50/50 if not less.

As for memory usage...

virtual mem / peak mem usage

16 384 kB / 21 596 kB with spellcheck (2 dictionaries)

10 508 kB / 16 764 kB with spellcheck (no dictionaries)

10 292 kB / 16 672 KB no spellcheck loaded

0.7.0 build #30 Unicode, 24 total plugins, after start - messageing window opened.

I would say it's worth considering at least (depending on difficulty of implementation).

It could be implemented as plugin (like guardian plugin in Zion++)

PS Spellchecking in hub is evil (except badword checking and spam checking) - should be done client side imho.

[Mikey 0]

I'm with Big Muscle. This is something that should be done via hub software. Implementing this would be pointless as 90% of the DC community is used for downloading. Also I'm almost positive as I am a tester and not a developer that it would have a negative effect on the resources of the client. If you want something of that nature maybe suggest a plugin or script in the forums pertaining to what you want.

[Zlobomir 3]

Agreed, it is not bad to have a spell checker, it will NOT waste resources as long as it is an option, but imo we have far more important things (bugs) to fix atm.

[Crise 26]

we have far more important things (bugs) to fix atm.

Nah, who wants to fix stuff, that's boring... besides bugs are just... hmm... features waiting for removal, yes that's it

(if someone didn't realize not being too serious here)

[balder 1]

Well my spelling is crap so any assistance there is appreciated. I dont think this would waste to many resources. as a side note i think this would be a really bad idea to implment in hub soft. if it is in hub soft it means i have to send my message before finding out that it is incorrect. with my dyslexic, crappy spelling this could mean i have to send ten messages to the hub before i send I get the correct spelling. leaving two possible senarios.

1. i cant send a message to the hub untill i spell all words correctlly

2. the hub gets flooded with badly spelt messages untill i spell all words correctlly

If this is going to be implmented it should most definetly be done client side. As a side note i think most people come to expect bad spelling/grammer in DC chat, so although this may be a usefull feature it is definetly not high priority

[Greg 0]

Opera uses GNU Aspell spell checker which basically is only used when the user runs it, unlike word processors etc. which spell check every word as you type. Opera also allows you to spell check a selection of text (eg. just one word), which obviously uses less resources. If a spell checker was implemented then using GNU Aspell would probably be fairly resource-light. Personally about 2% of my current use is for P2P. Chat/people is my primary reason for using DC now.

(By the way, Opera with the use of UserJS can use spell checkers which check every word as you type, similar to word processors, but this is obviously more resource heavy. Just don;t assume that Firefox is superior and that Opera can;t offer decent spell checking.)

[Seeker 0]

I was thinking of suggesting that, but it would again look like im praising Opera. No harm in supporting this though, im all for it! :)

[Kulmegil 1]

Hunspell (OOo, Miranda, .. Firefox3?), or Aspell are probably the best choices currently. I don't know witch is better and I wouldn't dare to open discussion about it myself (both are open source, UTF8, have lot's of dictionaries...), but probably the one witch is easier to implement. I suggested miranda plugin because I count it would be easiest (convert it to something like peerguardian plugin?). The more difficult it gets the less chance to see it (this century at least:)

As for the resource usage I already posted my observations for IM plugin (uses Hunspell). Impact on memory looks minimal if You don't use the feature.

Whatever the way, it's goal that meters : it's suppose to do spellchecking "as I type", underline bad words and give context menu suggestions. It's the only reasonable way for IM style conversations.

[ifmn 0]

Agreed, it is not bad to have a spell checker, it will NOT waste resources as long as it is an option, but imo we have far more important things (bugs) to fix atm.

:(

[Pedja 0]

Main purpose of DC is p2p (sharing), chat is only minor feature. SpellChecker would only decrease DC usability (higher memory usage, higher CPU usage etc.).

I believe that lots of the developers do not realize that DC is the only p2p protocol that is actually very popular among communities do to its universal usage: as file share and chat.

Chat is not at all minor feature. It is very important.

I believe that developers should start realizing that DC is long time above plain p2p, and that it became very powerful community building tool.

[Lain_13 0]

Hunspell better then aspell 'cos hunspell based on aspell and implement some really great functions and support more languages. Also dictionaries for hunspell really smaller (on HDD and in RAM) but much complicated. For aspell in Russian words you need to add words "работает", "работал", "работать" e.t.c. as separate words in hunspell it's one word with modifications. Also it work in a other language with many versions for one word in various cases. E.g. in English "work", "works", "working" e.t.c.

p.s. Aspell and Hunspell still have troubles with languages like Arabic. In this language words on paper written without spaces.