It’s interesting that mapping random noise to characters via OCR generally produces valid perl… but I always hated how they phrased the title of this experiment since it’s obviously bullshit. Essentially, a good interesting experiment made less interesting by a sensationalist title.
Perl programs are, by definition, text. So “paint splatters are valid Perl” implies that there’s a mapping from paint splatters to text.
Do you have a suggested mapping of paint splatters to text that would be more “accurate” than OCR? And do you really think it would result in fewer valid Perl programs?
Aka our OCR software is insanely inaccurate.
It’s interesting that mapping random noise to characters via OCR generally produces valid perl… but I always hated how they phrased the title of this experiment since it’s obviously bullshit. Essentially, a good interesting experiment made less interesting by a sensationalist title.
Perl programs are, by definition, text. So “paint splatters are valid Perl” implies that there’s a mapping from paint splatters to text.
Do you have a suggested mapping of paint splatters to text that would be more “accurate” than OCR? And do you really think it would result in fewer valid Perl programs?
I think it’s okay to relax a little when we’re just having a bit of fun.
It’s whimsical, Leland.