I think we are in agreement here, Chris. My point is that the error
detection and correction is now done at levels where there is not much need
to use earlier and inefficient methods like parity bits set aside. We use
protocols like TCP and IP and layers above them and above those to maintain
the integrity of packets and sessions and forms of encryption allowing
things like authentication. There is tons of overhead, even when some is
fairly efficient, but we hardly notice it unless things go wrong.

So written language sent (as in this email/post) does not need lots of
redundancy and all the extra effort is, IMNSHO opinion, largely wasted. If I
see a bear, I do not wish to check their genitals or DNA to determine their
irrelevant gender before asking someone to run from it. If I happen to know
the gender, as in a zoo, gender only matters for things like breeding
purposes. I do not want to memorize terms in languages that have not only
words like lion and lioness or duck and drake and goose and gander, but for
EVERYTHING in some sense so I can say the equivalent of ANIMAL-male and
ANIMAL-female with unique words. Life would be so much simpler if I could
say your dog was nice and not be corrected that it was a bitch and I used
the wrong word endings. If I really wanted to say it was a female dog, well
I could just add a qualified. Most of the time, who cares?

The same applies to so much grammatical nonsense which is also usually
riddled with endless exceptions to the many rules. Make the languages simple
with little redundancy and thus far easier to learn.

I can say similar things about some programming languages that either have
way too many rules or too few of the right ones.

There are tradeoffs and if you want a powerful language it will likely not
be easy to control. If you want a very regulated language, you may find it
not very useful as many things are hard to do ad others not possible. I know
that strongly typed languages often have to allow some method of cheating
such as unions of data types, or using a parent class as the sort of
object-type to allow disparate objects to live together. Python is far from
the most complex but as noted, it is not trivial to evaluate even the syntax
past errors.

But I admit it is fun and a challenge to learn both kinds and I spent much
of my time doing so. I like the flexibility of seeing different approaches
and holding contradictions in my mind while accepting both and yet neither!
LOL!

-----Original Message-----
From: Python-list <python-list-bounces+avi.e.gross=gmail.com@python.org> On
Behalf Of Chris Angelico
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2022 11:24 PM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: What to use for finding as many syntax errors as possible.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 14:13, <avi.e.gross@gmail.com> wrote:
> With the internet today, we are used to expecting error correction to
> come for free. Do you really need one of every 8 bits to be a parity
> bit, which only catches may half of the errors...

Fortunately, we have WAY better schemes than simple parity, which was only
really a thing in the modem days. (Though I would say that there's still a
pretty clear distinction between a good message where everything has correct
parity, and line noise where half of them
don't.) Hamming codes can correct one-bit errors (and detect two-bit
errors) at a price of log2(size)+1 bits of space. Here's a great
rundown:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8jsijhllIA

There are other schemes too, but Hamming codes are beautifully elegant and
easy to understand.

ChrisA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list