-
There is, for example, a curious evaluation table provided by a modern ML-based spellchecker JamSpell. According to it, JamSpell is awesome—while Hunspell is a mere 0.03% better than dummy ("fix nothing") spellchecker... Which doesn't ring true, somehow!
-
SaaSHub
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews. SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives
-
Those questions are open ones—and even the way they can be answered is unclear. Intuitively, Hunspell's suggestions are quite decent—otherwise, it wouldn't be the most widespread spellchecker, after all. A fair amount of "unhappy customers" can be easily found, too, in hunspell's repo issues. At the same time, one should distinguish between different reasons for the sub-par suggestion quality. It might be due to the algorithm itself, or due to the source data quality: the literal absence of the desired suggestion in the dictionary, or lack of aff-file settings that could've guided Hunspell to finding it.
-
SymSpell
SymSpell: 1 million times faster spelling correction & fuzzy search through Symmetric Delete spelling correction algorithm
Some of the modern approaches to spellchecking still take this road: for example, SymSpell algorithm (claiming to be "1 million times faster") is at its core just a brilliant idea for a novel storage format for a flat word list, that allows optimizing the calculation of edit distance significantly.
Related posts
-
Let's Read - Eloquent Ruby - Ch 21
-
Why don't common browsers use Soundex for spelling suggestions?
-
Does anyone know how to change the dictionary that W10 pulls from? Ideally replace with Google's brain?
-
Turn the spellchecker into autocorrection software
-
Autocorrect anything with Google as a go-to spell check