@Raphael In my opinion, the #1 problem with that question is a failure to do enough research before asking. I do think the question is also too broad -- it asks about both features and ML methods, which is already too broad, and also each of those subjects is very broad in its own right, with lots written about them. Anyway, in my opinion the poster would be better served by spending more time self-studying NLP material.

Also, I already suggested (when I answered their last question) some features that would answer the "features" part this question, but they're not mentioned in the question and the poster doesn't seem to have made any effort to study them -- another instance of "need to do more research before asking". Oh well.

This made me think. What if we had a language where everything was implicitly parallel and we'd have to specify sequential constraints explicitly?

@D.W. Oh dear. :/ I wasn't aware of the history. So, should we close as "too broad"?

@Raphael it would look like erlang in the bad day?

Maybe. It pains me to say that I can not really think in parallel ways. Which is weird, because it is arguably the more natural state of mind.

@Raphael there are some parallel languages that come close to that eg "message passing" etc

But still you write them sequentially, maybe it is a problem? It would be more natural way to write the parallel problems in more parallel way ;)

You could write them side-by-side, at least on paper. ;)

Like starting dozens of threads in standard "for loop", it is not parallel, we are a bit acustomed to sequential code.

if only you could write them side by side in some notepad/IDE, it would be easier to write, but even "traits" or "partials" are not that convinent.

@EvilJS have long wanted to invent a visual programming language that would support/ animate such concepts. it wouldnt be hard. but tradition/ conventions may be getting in the way.

@vzn it is not true that we think visually, at least not everyone does. I tried such app to write calculator, it was so limited that it took me more than hour and it was not possible to use floats. Tradeoff is too big for now. But the idea itself is awesome, with limited builder static analysis is simpler, you do not need to remember anything, just use it like RAD.

But the interface is challanging - how would you represent for example bitwise operations? Any first class citizens? Lazy evaluation?

But if the system would gather algorithms, ideas and hint you "well it seems that you are writting Collatz code, would you like to include cool plots?" Or even better, "well it seems that with given algorithm to your data structure the performance will be poor, would you like to insert better one?". Dream big ;)

@vzn did you knew that people making spelling mistakes even if they knew the rules and are very intelligent, well they do think visually and the spelling is not easily representable. But with connection withe better memory they do remember images of the words ;) Anyway, the visual thinking is very uncommon, just like the multi threading in our actions...

@EvilJS Stop feeding. He clearly ignored the scope-related feedback -- for that I don't have no patience. We should ignore his efforts to try and lead a tutoring session in his question; rollbacks may be in order.

@Raphael ok. Delete my feeds?

@EvilJS Your call.

It was too poor to be migrated?

I did not get what he wants. He insists it's not programming, so why send him to Stack Overflow?

I don't know. No community votes to that effect, so that's that.

/dev/null awaits...

devnull.stackexchange.com - ideal place for problem dumps, please post there, no strings attached, no fuss ;)

does someone knows where can I find information about huffman shape index? is it same as huffman coding? thanks for answering

@Learner does wavelet tree seems familiar in this context?

Exact cover is NPC, so it is decision problem, so if one asks for the output as list of all possible solutions and asks whether this is instance of exact cover then answer is "no"?

@vzn have you seen CODE or openDX? The mentioned LabVIEW and App Inventor (I used 2 version), well I had this "oportunity to use them"... but I will do this huge sacrifice and I am going to avoid them...