Anonymous user
Talk:Teacup rim text: Difference between revisions
→Dictionary swap?: Oh yes, quality.
(→Dictionary swap?: Oh yes, quality.) |
|||
Line 54:
: Re ''"we seem to use ... a lot"'' (above), perhaps worth pausing to consider the goals and qualities ?
:The MIT dictionary proves more rewarding for this exercise (it contains more circular groups). It is also half the size, which makes scripts quicker to iteratively test, and contributes less to atmospheric warming. Now that we are flip-flopping a bit here, I think some will understandably just future-proof themselves by using both, which is fine, but it may be that the MIT dictionary simply has better qualities as a vehicle for testing scripts. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 08:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
:: Hadn't thought of dictionary quality - good point. I just thought that if there's a dict we use a lot, then why not use it again.
:: I tend to stay clear of the scrabble type dictionaries when actually playing word games as they tend to include really odd letter combinations as words (such as qi and qat - which I now know), but which expands my vocabulary in odd directions. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 10:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
| |||