How One Programmer Is Coding Faster By Voice Than Keyboard
mikejuk writes "Is it possible that we have been wasting our time typing programs. Could voice recognition, with a little help from an invented spoken language, be the solution we didn't know we needed? About two years ago Tavis Rudd, developed a bad case of RSI caused by typing lots of code using Emacs. It was so severe that he couldn't code. As he puts it: 'Desperate, I tried voice recognition'. The Dragon Naturally Speaking system used by Rudd supported standard language quite well, but it wasn't adapted to program editing commands. The solution was to use a Python speech extension, DragonFly, to program custom commands. OK, so far so good, but ... the commands weren't quite what you might have expected. Instead of English words for commands he used short vocalizations — you have to hear it to believe it. Now programming sounds like a conversation with R2D2. The advantage is that it is faster and the recognition is easier — it also sounds very cool and very techie. it is claimed that the system is faster than typing. So much so that it is still in use after the RSI cleared up."
Really ? He'd have been better off with VI - everyone knows it stands for Voice Input :p
while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
So how long until he gets laryngitis and has to start typing again?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
"Open parenthetheeth liphth wun too theven clothe parenthetheeth wetun"
Huh, it actually works.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
I do not spend that much time ting, actually.
You don't say?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
This use of speech recognition seems like a similar situation. It works for a few people, but it will not ever have a large user community. QWERTY keyboards are so dominant that their network effect makes other input modes irrelevant. Even those who adopt it will still be using conventional keyboards away from their custom environment.
Why is Snark Required?
> I'd have a hard time believing that this could be faster than someone using something like autocomplete as done in .NET ..
autocomplete was around long before .NET as was context-sensitive-help before Microsoft renamed it Intellisense ..
AccountKiller
No, open "parenthesis" will be abbreviated "pah". And close parenthesis will be "ump".
Thus, coding will sound like, "Umpah lumpa, dipity doo, I have another puzzle for you..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw0zZttfUaw
Table-ized A.I.
Unless you are programming utterly structure starved glue-code, input is not the limiting factor, thinking about what you want to input is.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
So... what? Do you just chug it?
I believe it's intended to be administered as an enema . . .
You might be able to convince some frat boys into trying it . . . they're already doing it with alcohol.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
What Lisp programmers really need are two foot pedals - one for left parentheses and one for right parentheses. That should cover 90% of their input requirements.
That's like saying someone can get around faster in a wheelchair because they've broken their legs.
You might want to look up the record time for completing the Boston Marathon in a wheelchair vs. on foot.
I'm not debugging *my* code :)
thegodmovie.com - watch it