On 2014-11-28 02:05, deadalnix wrote:

> I'm using it on my mac, but it is messing up with specials keys like
> command, control and friends.

It does? You do know that iTerm2 is highly configurable? You can change the hotkeys and also the exact escape sequence a given key should send.

> Both the control key and the terminal are bleeding edge technology, so
> it is expected that they are not handled properly...

I don't know if I'm misunderstand but..., or was this a joke?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

Joakim wrote:
>> ah, and occasional "ah, hello, honey, how do... DAMN IT! FSCK!
>> GET
>> LOST! oh, no, honey, i'm not talking with you... what do you
>> mean by
>> 'you never talking with me'? ehm... shit."
> 
> "break<pause>ah, hello, honey, how do..."

	As everybody knows, this works just fine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWZLa4AnN5k ;)

		Jerome

clip
>
> There are heuristics that can get such homonyms right based on the context.  As voice recognition advances, they are being applied and increasing accuracy by leaps and bounds.  One nice consequence of the current mobile boom is that a ton of work is getting put into improving the speech recognition engines of Google Now, Siri, and Cortana.
>
>> Please, give me a keyboard anytime.
>
> Only if you want to go really slow, like people who still write stuff out longhand or use mechanical typewriters these days. :) Take a look at the wpm numbers I linked above, voice is much faster than typing and recognition is becoming much more accurate.

Just wanted to make a couple of comments on 'voice activated coding'.

My typing speed is not the bottleneck in my coding, it is the speed at which I reason about the problem at hand.  So voice activated/typing isn't likely going to make a huge difference in my coding speed.

However, what does influence my coding speed significantly is how well I am able to concentrate.  Voice activated coding might work well in your home office, but how would it play out at an office, or a school lab.  Will we all get our own, sound-proof offices ... or headsets that filter out everything but our own voices?

I think this issue is going to be more of a hinderance to voice activated coding than the technical issues.

Also, I bet that on heavily used systems the bottleneck for a voice activated system is not going to be the speed at which the user speaks, but the speed at which the voice processor interprets what they are saying (like when the GC kicks in :o)  Sure, there is no reason that this should be the case, but modern software seems to stall often enough just handling basic text.

On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 14:08:02 UTC, CraigDillabaugh wrote:
> clip
clip
>
> My typing speed is not the bottleneck in my coding, it is the speed at which I reason about the problem at hand.  So voice activated/typing isn't likely going to make a huge difference in my coding speed.
>
> However, what does influence my coding speed significantly is how well I am able to concentrate.  Voice activated coding might work well in your home office, but how would it play out at an office, or a school lab.  Will we all get our own, sound-proof offices ... or headsets that filter out everything but our own voices?
>
> I think this issue is going to be more of a hinderance to voice activated coding than the technical issues.

Pardon the noise on my part. Of course this won't be an issue, I completely forgot about the 'Cone of Silence'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1eUIK9CihA

On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 01:04:40 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 November 2014 at 19:58:33 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> You would have to be a very slow talker if you could type faster.
>
> I don't think it would be a one-to-one correspondence. I saw a youtube where a guy had rigged a voice interface for code and he didn't say things like "foo left paren bar comma baz right paren semicolon" it was more like "foo bah bar *click*" - he made a new language with various sounds.

Yeah, that's what I tried to give an example of to ketmar above.

> On the other hand, by the same reasoning, talking faster than typing doesn't necessarily match up because like how would you say "a = *b | c"? I would probably say something like "a equals what's pointed to by by bitor c"... and I type it at about the same speed as I say it since there's more syllables than symbols. Autocomplete and such can give an edge to the typing too.

It "wins" there because the only reason you're using single characters is because they're faster to type, despite not being a good coding practice for future maintenance, ie what do a, b, and c actually signify?  You will be able to give each of those variables actual names quicker when speaking and the resulting code will be more maintainable.

> I don't think talk-coding would be slow - in my head, sometimes I say these things as my fingers translate it to code - but I don't think it would be much faster either.
>
> Now, talking vs typing prose is a different story, my fingers couldn't keep up with my brain on writing this email. But with code, my fingers typically aren't the bottleneck.
>
>
> (and it certainly wouldn't revolutionize the industry, where the slowest part for me tends to be figuring out WTF the customer is asking for anyway...)

I agree with most of this, the bottleneck for coding usually isn't the keyboard, since you're usually pausing to think.  There are some speed demon keyboard coders who could probably go even faster with voice though.

I brought up using voice recognition as a general computer interface but, of course, everybody here only focused on the niche case of coding. :) I was talking about using it for everything: manipulating the GUI, entering text, etc.  The hand gestures are there as a fallback for when you can't use voice or because sometimes they are more expressive, say for manipulating spatial objects or drawing.

>> Windows Start menu to launch applications and get into the right system settings, ie by using the keyboard.
>
> A friend asked me over the weekend how to get to the calculator on Windows 8. One person was giving the old Win 95 answer "click start, go to programs, accessories, then click calculator". That doesn't work on Win8... and I think the new way is so much better:
>
> I said "hit that windows button on the keyboard then type "calculator" and hit enter".
>
> She did that and agreed it is super easy.

Over the years, I've increasingly come to the conclusion that search is a universal interface that is still underused.  Of course, part of that is because of indexing issues, but search is just much more natural and can easily be updated to take voice input.

> I think the biggest benefit of a GUI isn't so much ease of use as the ability to browse the options. If she didn't know there was a calculator, she would never have thought to just type the word, but might have noticed the icon while looking at the start menu. But if you already know what you want, it is hard to beat just asking for it directly.

Yeah, that has long been a benefit of GUIs, though as the number of options get very large, it doesn't scale.  I cannot remember where anything is in the Windows Control Panel these days, since it's so overstuffed with settings that the initial panel leaves out many categories, so I invariably use search to find the settings panel I want.  You can also use search to browse by using different keywords, but if the keywords aren't done well, you might miss it that way too.

On Thursday, 27 November 2014 at 21:05:14 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> You'll simply hand the recognizer software a bunch of old code that exemplifies your programming style and it'll figure out that you prefer spaces there and automatically add them for you, without having to say it or configure it. :) That's actually fairly easy, if your style is at all consistent.
> that recognizer still must be able do do semantic analysis on each
> language i want to use, or it will fail on almost any compilcated
> sentense.

You wouldn't need semantic analysis for formatting style, which is what we were talking about.

>> > ah, and occasional "ah, hello, honey, how do... DAMN IT! FSCK! GET
>> > LOST! oh, no, honey, i'm not talking with you... what do you mean by
>> > 'you never talking with me'? ehm... shit."
>> "break<pause>ah, hello, honey, how do..."
> so i can't code and talk simultaneously anymore? ah, that's what i call
> "new technologies"! ;-)

Well, just as vi introduced modal editing and had you switch back and forth decades ago, speech recognition will have to do the same initially.  Eventually it'll be smart enough to tell the difference between speech directed at it and elsewhere.  We're still in the vi phase of speech recognition interfaces. ;)

On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 09:25:53 UTC, Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
> Joakim wrote:
>> "break<pause>ah, hello, honey, how do..."
>
> 	As everybody knows, this works just fine:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWZLa4AnN5k ;)

Seems like it's working great to me, the problem is MS allowing that keyphrase in the game's content. :)

On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 14:08:02 UTC, CraigDillabaugh wrote:
> Just wanted to make a couple of comments on 'voice activated coding'.
>
> My typing speed is not the bottleneck in my coding, it is the speed at which I reason about the problem at hand.  So voice activated/typing isn't likely going to make a huge difference in my coding speed.
>
> However, what does influence my coding speed significantly is how well I am able to concentrate.  Voice activated coding might work well in your home office, but how would it play out at an office, or a school lab.  Will we all get our own, sound-proof offices ... or headsets that filter out everything but our own voices?

Yeah, headsets, which programmers often already use to listen to music while coding, or those little jaw mics if you just want the microphone.  If the mic is close enough, you can talk in a low voice and still be recognized.  Call centers use headsets and pack them in, I doubt it can't be done for other fields too.

> Also, I bet that on heavily used systems the bottleneck for a voice activated system is not going to be the speed at which the user speaks, but the speed at which the voice processor interprets what they are saying (like when the GC kicks in :o)  Sure, there is no reason that this should be the case, but modern software seems to stall often enough just handling basic text.

Google made their speech recognition available offline on Android a couple years back, ie it's not tied to servers with massive resources anymore.  With specialized hardware, I don't think it'll be a problem, but I don't know the details of the latest advances.  I know the just-released Android 5.0 added support for specialized low-power, always-on voice recognition chips, so you can talk to your phone when the screen is off and instantly turn it on, which the Moto X and Nexus 6 and 9 have.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:52:01 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> I brought up using voice recognition as a general computer interface but, of course, everybody here only focused on the niche case of coding. :) I was talking about using it for everything: manipulating the GUI, entering text, etc.  The hand gestures are there as a fallback for when you can't use voice or because sometimes they are more expressive, say for manipulating spatial objects or drawing.
"move window there" ah, stupid computer! "move window THERE!" damn it! "T.H.E.R.E." idiot. can't understand so simple word!

On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 14:08:01 +0000
CraigDillabaugh via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> Just wanted to make a couple of comments on 'voice activated coding'.
> 
> My typing speed is not the bottleneck in my coding, it is the speed at which I reason about the problem at hand.  So voice activated/typing isn't likely going to make a huge difference in my coding speed.
that depends of style. i, for example, love to think alot typing nothing, and then have hour-long typing sessions when i already know and see what i want and just have to type it. any shortcut is invaluable here and voice input is way too slow.

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 07:06:01PM +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 14:08:01 +0000
> CraigDillabaugh via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> 
> > Just wanted to make a couple of comments on 'voice activated coding'.
> > 
> > My typing speed is not the bottleneck in my coding, it is the speed at which I reason about the problem at hand.  So voice activated/typing isn't likely going to make a huge difference in my coding speed.
> that depends of style. i, for example, love to think alot typing nothing, and then have hour-long typing sessions when i already know and see what i want and just have to type it. any shortcut is invaluable here and voice input is way too slow.

Not to mention tiring... I can type for hours on end, no problem, but after speaking for half an hour I'm exhausted and my throat is sore.


T

-- 
Too many people have open minds but closed eyes.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 09:23:12 -0800
"H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 07:06:01PM +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 14:08:01 +0000
> > CraigDillabaugh via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Just wanted to make a couple of comments on 'voice activated coding'.
> > > 
> > > My typing speed is not the bottleneck in my coding, it is the speed at which I reason about the problem at hand.  So voice activated/typing isn't likely going to make a huge difference in my coding speed.
> > that depends of style. i, for example, love to think alot typing nothing, and then have hour-long typing sessions when i already know and see what i want and just have to type it. any shortcut is invaluable here and voice input is way too slow.
> 
> Not to mention tiring... I can type for hours on end, no problem, but after speaking for half an hour I'm exhausted and my throat is sore.
ah, yes. i don't think about that, but you are right: typing for two hours is ok, and talking for two hours is really painfull.

On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 19:16:28 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> ah, yes. i don't think about that, but you are right: typing for two hours is ok

I don't really agree, if I were to type for nonstop for two hours, I'd be in a world of pain.

Talking for two hours hurts too, but typing can bring all kinds of RSI to the wrist and such. I rarely go for that long if I can avoid it just as a preventative measure.