Skip to main content

Duckling, A Date-Parsing Library That Makes Me Rethink About Parsing

Earlier this week I ran across a really fascinating project called Duckling. This isn't the Duckling project that I work on, but the coincidental name sameness probably caught my attention! Duckling is a date parsing library for Clojure, but it handles date parsing in a fairly unique fashion.

From the Duckling website:
Duckling is “almost” a Probabilistic Context Free Grammar.
Although I am no NLP expert (it is on my long and growing list of things to study one of these days), I was able to get the just from the explanation and the examples combined. Just look at some of the strings Duckling is able to successfully parse:
“the 1st of march”“last week”“a quarter to noon”“thirty two celsius”“2 inches”“the day before labor day 2020”
 These don't even have to be dates. Duckling's approach is generalized in a way that the library itself doesn't require special handling of dates, only that it's training set includes sufficient samplings of date (and other) text.

What stands out to me is that libraries like this are not just solving a problem, but are actually solving the problem of solving the problem. Programmers shouldn't spend their time parsing a million different ways language can describe the same or very similar things, because software can do it for us. And, as programmers, we need to be more aware about what the computers we work with every day are really capable of. When the compiler was invented, programmers were worried they're jobs would become obsolete, but look at us: we still have barely progressed, and some times I worry that is on purpose.

These little problems don't have to be hard, but by insisting that we keep re-solving them in the most difficult and manual ways, we're severely limiting the upward potentials of our craft.

Along similar thoughts I recently came across Fix My JS, which automatically lints and actually fixes errors in your Javascript.  More of this please! Programming tools can be so much more advanced than they are today, but instead of seeing any real progress, we just see new text editors copying a new combination of feature sets of older text editors.



We can do so much better. Let's see more of this!


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…