- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/1927197
Hey everyone, check the Linguist
- you can translate texts offline (with sent no one single byte to a Google and stay private)
- a lot of features and flexible configuration
- dictionary + history for learn languages
- it is are hackable - you can write code to use your own translation service
I have to ask why.
Did you understand enough of the description to decide whether to use the extension? If yes, then the description is enough as it is.
And if the project becomes popular, then native speakers will likely eventually volunteer to edit the documentation including any landing page.
I promise, I’m not being passive-aggressive or sarcastic or anything here. I am genuinely unsure what makes this such a significant oversight and even more surprised at all the upvotes.
On the contrary, I find it more compelling to read such a description in obviously non-native English, because I would expect that from a person who genuinely needs a more-convenient translator (mostly from English to their native language, because so much of the web is in English) in their browser. Who better to build one?
I didn’t post the original comment, but as I was reading the description noticing the grammar mistakes, and I thought the same thing: if the Dev used his own program to translate from his language to English then the software can’t be any good". Then I thought: “neither Google nor Mozilla would do that, the Dev didn’t use his tool” Then, I came back to the comments to see what was going on.
Regarding the original comment: It’s just good marketing, If you make a UX/UI design software, then the app itself has to have a good interface. If you make video editing software, the video on the homepage shouldn’t be pixelated.
Or not. It’s not mandatory, obviously, it’s just a good practice. But yeah, you could leave it as it is, anyone can submit and contribute.
Translation software is not grammar checking software. It doesn’t improve the grammar of what was written in the original language. I’ve read a few things on the web over the years and there’s a ton of terrible grammar from native writers.
To be frank, judging the quality of a translation plugin by the grammar of the landing page or of the announcement blog post reflects the ignorance of the judge. It smacks of wanting an excuse to tear down a stranger on the internet. And frankly, it’s privileged bullshit.
The reaction of the extension’s author tells me everything I need to know about them: “I did my best. If you’d like to submit some improvements, here’s a link to the repository.”
That is good practice.
Ignore em mate, there’s always someone who hasn’t had their coffee yet. I love the extension, great work!
You write a description for your application in a language you are not confident in. You are aware you could have made errors, yet you don’t take the time to check it with a grammar checker. It’s a simple process and takes seconds.
I’d like to point out again that language mistakes have been made in a language-related application. Constructive criticism is fine. The developer will learn from his mistakes.
At least it’s a marketing mistake. People who use poor grammar are not typically taken seriously.
Not everyone agrees, that’s subjective.
You have access to the text. Start a stopwatch. Edit the text using grammar-checking software. Post it somewhere on the web, fully-formatted and suitable for marketing purposes. Stop the stopwatch. Publish how long it took you.
We’ll review your work.
Yes. This whole thread is subjective. And?