Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Cute idea, and useful research to answer the question, but the experimental result is essentially nothing. None of the examples generated anything semantically more complex than `0-0`.

Many scripting languages will tolerate meaningless input.

Instead of these extremely non-character-istic splatters, I think scribbles or random raster bitmaps would be better input.




If it tolerates meaningless input, that means you could accidentally hit a key, type garbage in a file and the compiler would have no complaints...

I've done this many times, trying to use the search bar and then having the debugger suddenly plop my cursor into a file....

I get what people are going for, but I don't think I would enjoy coding in Perl!


1. git complains about the uncommitted changes

2. When intentionally writing perl, half the time my "perl -c foo.pl" complains about syntax or badly used names (usu. misspellings), with the typo to correct being obvious. As a practical matter, it's not a problem.

I see a lot of semicolons in that ocr output, which might be cheating.


Git complains about uncommitted changes but it won't complain if you just like, open a random file and hit a key.

I'm sure it has some level of checking, but it doesn't seem anywhere near like what you get in Rust or MyPy.

I generally find dumb mistakes and typos take more time to solve than type annotations and verbose syntax take to write.


>but the experimental result is essentially nothing.

Sir, this is SIGBOVIK.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: