Dbushell's blog post "Et Tu, Grammarly?" criticizes Grammarly's tone detector for flagging neutral phrasing as overly negative or uncertain. He provides examples where simple, straightforward sentences are deemed problematic, arguing that the tool pushes users towards an excessively positive and verbose style, ultimately hindering clear communication. This, he suggests, reflects a broader trend of AI writing tools prioritizing a specific, and potentially undesirable, writing style over actual clarity and conciseness. He worries this reinforces corporate jargon and ultimately diminishes the quality of writing.
Parinfer simplifies Lisp code editing by automatically managing parentheses, brackets, and indentation. It offers two modes: "Paren Mode," where indentation dictates structure and Parinfer adjusts parentheses accordingly, and "Indent Mode," where parentheses define the structure and Parinfer corrects indentation. This frees the user from manually tracking matching delimiters, allowing them to focus on the code's logic. Parinfer analyzes the code as you type, instantly propagating changes and offering immediate feedback about structural errors, leading to a more fluid and less error-prone coding experience. It's adaptable to different indentation styles and supports various Lisp dialects.
HN users generally praised Parinfer for making Lisp editing easier, especially for beginners. Several commenters shared positive experiences using it with Clojure, noting improvements in code readability and reduced parenthesis-related errors. Some highlighted its ability to infer parentheses placement based on indentation, simplifying structural editing. A few users discussed its potential applicability to other languages, and at least one pointed out its integration with popular editors. However, some expressed skepticism about its long-term benefits or preference for traditional Lisp editing approaches. A minor point of discussion revolved around the tool's name and how it relates to its functionality.
Ropey is a Rust library providing a "text rope" data structure optimized for efficient manipulation and editing of large UTF-8 encoded text. It represents text as a tree of smaller strings, enabling operations like insertion, deletion, and slicing to be performed in logarithmic time complexity rather than the linear time of traditional string representations. This makes Ropey particularly well-suited for applications dealing with large text documents, code editors, and other text-heavy tasks where performance is critical. It also provides convenient methods for indexing and iterating over grapheme clusters, ensuring correct handling of Unicode characters.
HN commenters generally praise Ropey's performance and design, particularly its handling of UTF-8 and its focus on efficient editing of large text files. Some compare it favorably to alternatives like String and ropes in other languages, noting Ropey's speed and lower memory footprint. A few users discuss its potential applications in text editors and IDEs, highlighting its suitability for tasks involving syntax highlighting and code completion. One commenter suggests improvements to the documentation, while another inquires about the potential for adding support for bidirectional text. Overall, the comments express appreciation for the library's functionality and its potential value for projects requiring performant text manipulation.
Summary of Comments ( 47 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43514308
HN commenters largely agree with the author's criticism of Grammarly's aggressive upselling and intrusive UI. Several users share similar experiences of frustration with the constant prompts to upgrade, even after dismissing them. Some suggest alternative grammar checkers like LanguageTool and ProWritingAid, praising their less intrusive nature and comparable functionality. A few commenters point out that Grammarly's business model necessitates these tactics, while others discuss the potential negative impact on user experience and writing flow. One commenter mentions the irony of Grammarly's own grammatical errors in their marketing materials, further fueling the sentiment against the company's practices. The overall consensus is that Grammarly's usefulness is overshadowed by its annoying and disruptive upselling strategy.
The Hacker News post "Et Tu, Grammarly?" discussing Dbushell's blog post about Grammarly's apparent shift towards AI-driven features and potential decline in core grammar checking functionality, sparked a lively discussion with several compelling comments.
Several users shared anecdotal experiences mirroring the author's sentiment. One user lamented the perceived decline in Grammarly's ability to catch basic grammatical errors, contrasting it with the tool's past performance. They specifically mentioned missing simple mistakes, suggesting a shift in focus from fundamental grammar rules. Another commenter echoed this, expressing frustration with Grammarly's increasing tendency to offer stylistic suggestions instead of addressing core grammatical issues. This user found the stylistic suggestions disruptive and ultimately deactivated the tool due to its perceived ineffectiveness in its primary function.
The conversation also touched upon the broader implications of AI integration in writing tools. One commenter cautioned against relying solely on AI for writing and editing, emphasizing the importance of human oversight and the development of strong writing skills. They argued that tools like Grammarly should be used as aids, not replacements for critical thinking and careful editing. Another user suggested that the perceived decline in Grammarly's core functionality might be a deliberate strategy to push users towards the AI-powered features and premium subscriptions, speculating that the free version might be intentionally "dumbed down."
Some users offered alternative solutions and perspectives. One commenter recommended LanguageTool as a potential replacement for Grammarly, praising its open-source nature and perceived superiority in catching grammatical errors. Another user pointed out that while Grammarly might not be perfect, it still offers valuable assistance, particularly for non-native English speakers. This commenter highlighted the importance of acknowledging the tool's limitations and using it judiciously.
Finally, one commenter offered a more technical perspective, suggesting that the shift towards AI might be due to the inherent difficulty in maintaining and improving rule-based grammar checking systems. They speculated that machine learning models, despite their current limitations, might offer a more scalable and adaptable approach to grammar checking in the long run.
In summary, the comments on Hacker News reflect a mixed sentiment towards Grammarly's recent changes. While some users appreciate the new AI features, many express concern over the perceived decline in basic grammar checking capabilities, sparking a broader discussion about the role of AI in writing and the future of grammar-checking tools.