Machine translation is a sub-field of computational linguistics that investigates the use of software to translate text or speech from one natural language to another. In the 1950s, machine translation became a reality in research, although references to the subject can be found as early as the 17th century. The Georgetown experiment, which involved successful fully automatic translation of more than sixty Russian sentences into English in 1954, was one of the earliest recorded projects. Researchers of the Georgetown experiment asserted their belief that machine translation would be a solved problem within a few years. In the Soviet Union, similar experiments were performed shortly after. Consequently, the success of the experiment ushered in an era of significant funding for machine translation research in the United States. The achieved progress was much slower than expected; in 1966, the ALPAC report found that ten years of research had not fulfilled the expectations of the Georgetown experiment and resulted in dramatically reduced funding. Interest grew in statistical models for machine translation, which became more common and also less expensive in the 1980s as available computational power increased. Although there exists no autonomous system of "fully automatic high quality translation of unrestricted text," there are many programs now available that are capable of providing useful output within strict constraints. Several of these programs are available online, such as Google Translate and the SYSTRAN system that powers AltaVista's BabelFish (which was replaced by Microsoft Bing translator in May 2012). == The beginning == The origins of machine translation can be traced back to the work of Al-Kindi, a 9th-century Arabic cryptographer who developed techniques for systemic language translation, including cryptanalysis, frequency analysis, and probability and statistics, which are used in modern machine translation. The idea of machine translation later appeared in the 17th century. In 1629, René Descartes proposed a universal language, with equivalent ideas in different tongues sharing one symbol. In the mid-1930s the first patents for "translating machines" were applied for by Georges Artsrouni, for an automatic bilingual dictionary using punched tape. Russian Peter Troyanskii submitted a more detailed proposal that included both the bilingual dictionary and a method for dealing with grammatical roles between languages, based on the grammatical system of Esperanto. This system was separated into three stages: stage one consisted of a native-speaking editor in the source language to organize the words into their logical forms and to exercise the syntactic functions; stage two required the machine to "translate" these forms into the target language; and stage three required a native-speaking editor in the target language to normalize this output. Troyanskii's proposal remained unknown until the late 1950s, by which time computers were well-known and utilized. == The early years == The first set of proposals for computer based machine translation was presented in 1949 by Warren Weaver, a researcher at the Rockefeller Foundation, "Translation memorandum". These proposals were based on information theory, successes in code breaking during the Second World War, and theories about the universal principles underlying natural language. A few years after Weaver submitted his proposals, research began in earnest at many universities in the United States. On 7 January 1954 the Georgetown–IBM experiment was held in New York at the head office of IBM. This was the first public demonstration of a machine translation system. The demonstration was widely reported in the newspapers and garnered public interest. The system itself, however, was no more than a "toy" system. It had only 250 words and translated 49 carefully selected Russian sentences into English – mainly in the field of chemistry. Nevertheless, it encouraged the idea that machine translation was imminent and stimulated the financing of the research, not only in the US but worldwide. Early systems used large bilingual dictionaries and hand-coded rules for fixing the word order in the final output which was eventually considered too restrictive in linguistic developments at the time. For example, generative linguistics and transformational grammar were exploited to improve the quality of translations. During this period operational systems were installed. The United States Air Force used a system produced by IBM and Washington University in St. Louis, while the Atomic Energy Commission and Euratom, in Italy, used a system developed at Georgetown University. While the quality of the output was poor it met many of the customers' needs, particularly in terms of speed. At the end of the 1950s, Yehoshua Bar-Hillel was asked by the US government to look into machine translation, to assess the possibility of fully automatic high-quality translation by machines. Bar-Hillel described the problem of semantic ambiguity or double-meaning, as illustrated in the following sentence: Little John was looking for his toy box. Finally he found it. The box was in the pen. The word pen may have two meanings: the first meaning, something used to write in ink with; the second meaning, a container of some kind. To a human, the meaning is obvious, but Bar-Hillel claimed that without a "universal encyclopedia" a machine would never be able to deal with this problem. At the time, this type of semantic ambiguity could only be solved by writing source texts for machine translation in a controlled language that uses a vocabulary in which each word has exactly one meaning. == The 1960s, the ALPAC report and the seventies == Research in the 1960s in both the Soviet Union and the United States concentrated mainly on the Russian–English language pair. The objects of translation were chiefly scientific and technical documents, such as articles from scientific journals. The rough translations produced were sufficient to get a basic understanding of the articles. If an article discussed a subject deemed to be confidential, it was sent to a human translator for a complete translation; if not, it was discarded. A great blow came to machine-translation research in 1966 with the publication of the ALPAC report. The report was commissioned by the US government and delivered by ALPAC, the Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee, a group of seven scientists convened by the US government in 1964. The US government was concerned that there was a lack of progress being made despite significant expenditure. The report concluded that machine translation was more expensive, less accurate and slower than human translation, and that despite the expenditures, machine translation was not likely to reach the quality of a human translator in the near future. The report recommended, however, that tools be developed to aid translators – automatic dictionaries, for example – and that some research in computational linguistics should continue to be supported. The publication of the report had a profound impact on research into machine translation in the United States, and to a lesser extent the Soviet Union and United Kingdom. Research, at least in the US, was almost completely abandoned for over a decade. In Canada, France and Germany, however, research continued. In the US the main exceptions were the founders of SYSTRAN (Peter Toma) and Logos (Bernard Scott), who established their companies in 1968 and 1970 respectively and served the US Department of Defense. In 1970, the SYSTRAN system was installed for the United States Air Force, and subsequently by the Commission of the European Communities in 1976. The METEO System, developed at the Université de Montréal, was installed in Canada in 1977 to translate weather forecasts from English to French, and was translating close to 80,000 words per day or 30 million words per year until it was replaced by a competitor's system on 30 September 2001. While research in the 1960s concentrated on limited language pairs and input, demand in the 1970s was for low-cost systems that could translate a range of technical and commercial documents. This demand was spurred by the increase of globalisation and the demand for translation in Canada, Europe, and Japan. == The 1980s and early 1990s == By the 1980s, both the diversity and the number of installed systems for machine translation had increased. A number of systems relying on mainframe technology were in use, such as SYSTRAN, Logos, Ariane-G5, and Metal. As a result of the improved availability of microcomputers, there was a market for lower-end machine translation systems. Many companies took advantage of this in Europe, Japan, and the USA. Systems were also brought onto the market in China, Eastern Europe, Korea, and the Soviet Union. During the 1980s there was a lot of activity in MT in Japan especially. With the fifth-generation co
Jordan Antiquities Database and Information System
The Jordan Antiquities Database and Information System (JADIS) was a computer database of antiquities in Jordan, the first of its kind in the Arab world. It was established by the Department of Antiquities in 1990, in cooperation with the American Center for Oriental Research in Amman and sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development. JADIS was in use until 2002, when it was superseded by a new system, MEGA-J. Over 10,841 antiquities were registered in the database. An introduction and printed summary of the database was published by the Department of Antiquities in 1994, edited by Gaetano Palumbo.
Aslı Çelikyılmaz
Aslı Çelikyılmaz is an engineer specializing in natural language processing, and particularly in natural language generation for software agents with advanced reasoning and real-world modeling capabilities. Educated in Turkey and Canada, she works in the US as senior research lead at Fundamentals AI Research, Meta. She also holds an affiliate faculty position in computer science at the University of Washington, and is co-editor-in-chief of the journal Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics. == Education and career == Çelikyılmaz is a 1997 graduate of Istanbul Technical University, where she studied industrial engineering. After a 2002 master's degree in computer and information science from Seneca Polytechnic in Toronto, and a second master's degree in information science from the University of Toronto in 2005, she completed a Ph.D. in information science at the University of Toronto in 2008. She worked as a postdoctoral researcher in California, at the University of California, Berkeley, from 2008 to 2010. In 2010 she joined Microsoft in Sunnyvale, California, where she became a senior scientist and later a senior principal researcher in Redmond, Washington. She added her affiliation with the University of Washington in 2018, and moved to Meta in Seattle in 2021. == Recognition == Çelikyılmaz was named to the 2026 class of IEEE Fellows, "for contributions to conversational systems and language generation".
Lise Getoor
Lise Getoor is an American computer scientist who is a distinguished professor and Baskin Endowed chair in the Computer Science and Engineering department, at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and an adjunct professor in the Computer Science Department at the University of Maryland, College Park. Her primary research interests are in machine learning and reasoning with uncertainty, applied to graphs and structured data. She also works in data integration, social network analysis and visual analytics. She has edited a book on Statistical relational learning that is a main reference in this domain. She has published many highly cited papers in academic journals and conference proceedings. She has also served as action editor for the Machine Learning Journal, JAIR associate editor, and TKDD associate editor. She received her Ph.D. from Stanford University, her M.S. from UC Berkeley, and her B.S. from UC Santa Barbara. Prior to joining University of California, Santa Cruz, she was a professor at the University of Maryland, College Park until November 2013. == Recognition == Getoor has multiple best paper awards, an NSF Career Award, and is an Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Fellow. In 2019, she was elected as an ACM Fellow "for contributions to machine learning, reasoning under uncertainty, and responsible data science", was selected as a Distinguished Alumna of the UC Santa Barbara Computer Science Department, was awarded the UCSC WiSE Chancellor's Achievement Award for Diversity, and was selected to give the UC Santa Cruz Faculty Research Lecture 2018-19, one of the highest recognitions given to UC faculty. She was named an IEEE Fellow in 2021, "for contributions to machine learning and reasoning under uncertainty". In October 2022, Getoor was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). In 2024, she was named a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAA&S). Also in 2024, she received the ACM SIGKDD Innovation Award recognizing individuals with outstanding technical innovations in the field of Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining that have had a lasting impact in advancing the theory and practice of the field. == Personal life == Getoor's father was mathematician Ronald Getoor (1929–2017).
Suffix automaton
In computer science, a suffix automaton is an efficient data structure for representing the substring index of a given string which allows the storage, processing, and retrieval of compressed information about all its substrings. The suffix automaton of a string S {\displaystyle S} is the smallest directed acyclic graph with a dedicated initial vertex and a set of "final" vertices, such that paths from the initial vertex to final vertices represent the suffixes of the string. In terms of automata theory, a suffix automaton is the minimal partial deterministic finite automaton that recognizes the set of suffixes of a given string S = s 1 s 2 … s n {\displaystyle S=s_{1}s_{2}\dots s_{n}} . The state graph of a suffix automaton is called a directed acyclic word graph (DAWG), a term that is also sometimes used for any deterministic acyclic finite state automaton. Suffix automata were introduced in 1983 by a group of scientists from the University of Denver and the University of Colorado Boulder. They suggested a linear time online algorithm for its construction and showed that the suffix automaton of a string S {\displaystyle S} having length at least two characters has at most 2 | S | − 1 {\textstyle 2|S|-1} states and at most 3 | S | − 4 {\textstyle 3|S|-4} transitions. Further works have shown a close connection between suffix automata and suffix trees, and have outlined several generalizations of suffix automata, such as compacted suffix automaton obtained by compression of nodes with a single outgoing arc. Suffix automata provide efficient solutions to problems such as substring search and computation of the largest common substring of two and more strings. == History == The concept of suffix automaton was introduced in 1983 by a group of scientists from University of Denver and University of Colorado Boulder consisting of Anselm Blumer, Janet Blumer, Andrzej Ehrenfeucht, David Haussler and Ross McConnell, although similar concepts had earlier been studied alongside suffix trees in the works of Peter Weiner, Vaughan Pratt and Anatol Slissenko. In their initial work, Blumer et al. showed a suffix automaton built for the string S {\displaystyle S} of length greater than 1 {\displaystyle 1} has at most 2 | S | − 1 {\displaystyle 2|S|-1} states and at most 3 | S | − 4 {\displaystyle 3|S|-4} transitions, and suggested a linear algorithm for automaton construction. In 1983, Mu-Tian Chen and Joel Seiferas independently showed that Weiner's 1973 suffix-tree construction algorithm while building a suffix tree of the string S {\displaystyle S} constructs a suffix automaton of the reversed string S R {\textstyle S^{R}} as an auxiliary structure. In 1987, Blumer et al. applied the compressing technique used in suffix trees to a suffix automaton and invented the compacted suffix automaton, which is also called the compacted directed acyclic word graph (CDAWG). In 1997, Maxime Crochemore and Renaud Vérin developed a linear algorithm for direct CDAWG construction. In 2001, Shunsuke Inenaga et al. developed an algorithm for construction of CDAWG for a set of words given by a trie. == Definitions == Usually when speaking about suffix automata and related concepts, some notions from formal language theory and automata theory are used, in particular: "Alphabet" is a finite set Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } that is used to construct words. Its elements are called "characters"; "Word" is a finite sequence of characters ω = ω 1 ω 2 … ω n {\displaystyle \omega =\omega _{1}\omega _{2}\dots \omega _{n}} . "Length" of the word ω {\displaystyle \omega } is denoted as | ω | = n {\displaystyle |\omega |=n} ; "Formal language" is a set of words over given alphabet; "Language of all words" is denoted as Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{}} (where the "" character stands for Kleene star), "empty word" (the word of zero length) is denoted by the character ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } ; "Concatenation of words" α = α 1 α 2 … α n {\displaystyle \alpha =\alpha _{1}\alpha _{2}\dots \alpha _{n}} and β = β 1 β 2 … β m {\displaystyle \beta =\beta _{1}\beta _{2}\dots \beta _{m}} is denoted as α ⋅ β {\displaystyle \alpha \cdot \beta } or α β {\displaystyle \alpha \beta } and corresponds to the word obtained by writing β {\displaystyle \beta } to the right of α {\displaystyle \alpha } , that is, α β = α 1 α 2 … α n β 1 β 2 … β m {\displaystyle \alpha \beta =\alpha _{1}\alpha _{2}\dots \alpha _{n}\beta _{1}\beta _{2}\dots \beta _{m}} ; "Concatenation of languages" A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} is denoted as A ⋅ B {\displaystyle A\cdot B} or A B {\displaystyle AB} and corresponds to the set of pairwise concatenations A B = { α β : α ∈ A , β ∈ B } {\displaystyle AB=\{\alpha \beta :\alpha \in A,\beta \in B\}} ; If the word ω ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \omega \in \Sigma ^{}} may be represented as ω = α γ β {\displaystyle \omega =\alpha \gamma \beta } , where α , β , γ ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle \alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \in \Sigma ^{}} , then words α {\displaystyle \alpha } , β {\displaystyle \beta } and γ {\displaystyle \gamma } are called "prefix", "suffix" and "subword" (substring) of the word ω {\displaystyle \omega } correspondingly; If T = T 1 … T n {\displaystyle T=T_{1}\dots T_{n}} and T l T l + 1 … T r = S {\displaystyle T_{l}T_{l+1}\dots T_{r}=S} (with 1 ≤ l ≤ r ≤ n {\displaystyle 1\leq l\leq r\leq n} ) then S {\displaystyle S} is said to "occur" in T {\displaystyle T} as a subword. Here l {\displaystyle l} and r {\displaystyle r} are called left and right positions of occurrence of S {\displaystyle S} in T {\displaystyle T} correspondingly. == Automaton structure == Formally, deterministic finite automaton is determined by 5-tuple A = ( Σ , Q , q 0 , F , δ ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}=(\Sigma ,Q,q_{0},F,\delta )} , where: Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is an "alphabet" that is used to construct words, Q {\displaystyle Q} is a set of automaton "states", q 0 ∈ Q {\displaystyle q_{0}\in Q} is an "initial" state of automaton, F ⊂ Q {\displaystyle F\subset Q} is a set of "final" states of automaton, δ : Q × Σ ↦ Q {\displaystyle \delta :Q\times \Sigma \mapsto Q} is a partial "transition" function of automaton, such that δ ( q , σ ) {\displaystyle \delta (q,\sigma )} for q ∈ Q {\displaystyle q\in Q} and σ ∈ Σ {\displaystyle \sigma \in \Sigma } is either undefined or defines a transition from q {\displaystyle q} over character σ {\displaystyle \sigma } . Most commonly, deterministic finite automaton is represented as a directed graph ("diagram") such that: Set of graph vertices corresponds to the state of states Q {\displaystyle Q} , Graph has a specific marked vertex corresponding to initial state q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}} , Graph has several marked vertices corresponding to the set of final states F {\displaystyle F} , Set of graph arcs corresponds to the set of transitions δ {\displaystyle \delta } , Specifically, every transition δ ( q 1 , σ ) = q 2 {\textstyle \delta (q_{1},\sigma )=q_{2}} is represented by an arc from q 1 {\displaystyle q_{1}} to q 2 {\displaystyle q_{2}} marked with the character σ {\displaystyle \sigma } . This transition also may be denoted as q 1 σ ⟶ q 2 {\textstyle q_{1}{\begin{smallmatrix}{\sigma }\\[-5pt]{\longrightarrow }\end{smallmatrix}}q_{2}} . In terms of its diagram, the automaton recognizes the word ω = ω 1 ω 2 … ω m {\displaystyle \omega =\omega _{1}\omega _{2}\dots \omega _{m}} only if there is a path from the initial vertex q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}} to some final vertex q ∈ F {\displaystyle q\in F} such that concatenation of characters on this path forms ω {\displaystyle \omega } . The set of words recognized by an automaton forms a language that is set to be recognized by the automaton. In these terms, the language recognized by a suffix automaton of S {\displaystyle S} is the language of its (possibly empty) suffixes. === Automaton states === "Right context" of the word ω {\displaystyle \omega } with respect to language L {\displaystyle L} is a set [ ω ] R = { α : ω α ∈ L } {\displaystyle [\omega ]_{R}=\{\alpha :\omega \alpha \in L\}} that is a set of words α {\displaystyle \alpha } such that their concatenation with ω {\displaystyle \omega } forms a word from L {\displaystyle L} . Right contexts induce a natural equivalence relation [ α ] R = [ β ] R {\displaystyle [\alpha ]_{R}=[\beta ]_{R}} on the set of all words. If language L {\displaystyle L} is recognized by some deterministic finite automaton, there exists unique up to isomorphism automaton that recognizes the same language and has the minimum possible number of states. Such an automaton is called a minimal automaton for the given language L {\displaystyle L} . Myhill–Nerode theorem allows it to define it explicitly in terms of right contexts: In these terms, a "suffix automaton" is the minimal deterministic finite automaton recognizing the language of suffixes of the word S = s 1 s 2 … s n {\displaystyle S=s_{1}s_{2}\dots s_{n}} . The right context of the word ω {\displaystyle \omeg
Indic computing
Indic Computing means "computing in Indic", i.e., Indian Scripts and Languages. It involves developing software in Indic Scripts/languages, Input methods, Localization of computer applications, web development, Database Management, Spell checkers, Speech to Text and Text to Speech applications and OCR in Indian languages. Unicode standard version 15.0 specifies codes for 9 Indic scripts in Chapter 12 titled "South and Central Asia-I, Official Scripts of India". The 9 scripts are Bengali, Devanagari, Gujarati, Gurmukhi, Kannada, Malayalam, Oriya, Tamil and Telugu. A lot of Indic Computing projects are going on. They involve some government sector companies, some volunteer groups and individual people. == Government sector == Indian Union Government made it mandatory for Mobile phone companies whose handsets manufactured, stored, sold and distributed in India to have support for displaying and typing text using fonts for all 22 languages. This move has seen rise in use of Indian languages by millions of users. === TDIL === The Department of Electronics and Information Technology, India initiated the TDIL (Technology Development for Indian Languages) with the objective of developing Information Processing Tools and Techniques to facilitate human-machine interaction without a language barrier; creating and accessing multilingual knowledge resources; and integrating them to develop innovative user products and services. In 2005, it started distributing language software tools developed by Government/Academic/Private companies in the form of CD for non commercial use. Some of the outcomes of TDIL program have been deployed on Indian Language Technology Proliferation & Deployment Centre. This Centre disseminates all the linguistic resources, tools & applications which have been developed under TDIL funding. This programme took to exponential expansion under the leadership of Dr. Swaran Lata who also created international foot-print of the programme. She has now retired. === C-DAC === C-DAC is an India based government software company which is involved in developing language related software. It is best known for developing InScript Keyboard, the standard keyboard for Indian languages. It has also developed lot of Indic language solutions including Word Processors, typing tools, text to speech software, OCR in Indian languages etc. ==== BharateeyaOO.org ==== The work developed out of CDAC, Bangalore (earlier known as NCST, Bangalore) became BharateeyaOO. OpenOffice 2.1 had support for over 10 Indian languages. ==== BOSS ==== BOSS linux was developed by the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC) to promote use of open-source software in India. == NGO and Volunteer groups == === Indlinux === Indlinux organisation helped organise the individual volunteers working on different indic language versions of Linux and its applications. === Sarovar === Sarovar.org is India's first portal to host projects under Free/Open source licenses. It is located in Trivandrum, India and hosted at Asianet data center. Sarovar.org is customised, installed and maintained by Linuxense as part of their community services and sponsored by River Valley Technologies. Sarovar.org is built on Debian Etch and GForge and runs off METTLE. === Pinaak === Pinaak is a non-government charitable society devoted to Indic language computing. It works for software localization, developing language software, localizing open source software, enriching online encyclopedias etc. In addition to this Pinaak works for educating people about computing, ethical use of Internet and use of Indian languages on Internet. === Ankur Group === Ankur Group is working toward supporting Bengali language (Bengali) on Linux operating system including localized Bengali GUI, Live CD, English-to-Bengali translator, Bengali OCR and Bengali Dictionary etc. === BhashaIndia === === SMC === SMC is a free software group, working to bridge the language divide in Kerala in the technology front and is today the biggest language computing community in India. == Input methods == === Full size keyboards === With the advent of Unicode inputting Indic text on computer has become very easy. A number of methods exist for this purpose, but the main ones are:- ==== InScript ==== Inscript is the standard keyboard for Indian languages. Developed by C-DAC and standardized by Government of India. Nowadays it comes inbuilt in all major operating systems including Microsoft Windows (2000, XP, Vista, 7), Linux and Macintosh. ==== Phonetic transliteration ==== This is a typing method in which, for instance, the user types text in an Indian language using Roman characters and it is phonetically converted to equivalent text in Indian script in real time. This type of conversion is done by phonetic text editors, word processors and software plugins. Building up on the idea, one can use phonetic IME tools that allow Indic text to be input in any application. Some examples of phonetic transliterators are Xlit, Google Indic Transliteration, BarahaIME, Indic IME, Rupantar, SMC's Indic Keyboard and Microsoft Indic Language Input Tool. SMC's Indic Keyboard has support for as many as 23 languages whereas Google Indic Keyboard only supports 11 Indian languages. They can be broadly classified as: Fixed transliteration scheme based tools – They work using a fixed transliteration scheme to convert text. Some examples are Indic IME, Rupantar and BarahaIME. Intelligent/Learning based transliteration tools – They compare the word with a dictionary and then convert it to the equivalent words in the target language. Some of the popular ones are Google Indic Transliteration, Xlit, Microsoft Indic Language Input Tool and QuillPad. ==== Remington (typewriter) ==== This layout was developed when computers had not been invented or deployed with Indic languages, and typewriters were the only means to type text in Indic scripts. Since typewriters were mechanical and could not include a script processor engine, each character had to be placed on the keyboard separately, which resulted in a very complex and difficult to learn keyboard layout. With the advent of Unicode, the Remington layout was added to various typing tools for sake of backward compatibility, so that old typists did not have to learn a new keyboard layout. Nowadays this layout is only used by old typists who are used to this layout due to several years of usage. One tool to include Remington layout is Indic IME. A font that is based on the Remington keyboard layout is Kruti Dev. Another online tool that very closely supports the old Remington keyboard layout using Kruti Dev is the Remington Typing tool. === Braille === IBus Sharada Braille, which supports seven Indian languages was developed by SMC. === Mobile phones with Numeric keyboards === Mobile/Hand/cell phone basic models have 12 keys like the plain old telephone keypad. Each key is mapped to 3 or 4 English letters to facilitate data entry in English. For inputting Indian languages with this kind of keypad, there are two ways to do so. First is the Multi-tap Method and second uses visual help from the screen like Panini Keypad. The primary usage is SMS. 140 characters size used for English/Roman languages can be used to accommodate only about 70 language characters when Unicode Proprietary compression is used some times to increase the size of single message for Complex script languages like Hindi. A research study of the available methods and recommendations of proposed standard was released by Broadband Wireless Consortium of India (BWCI). ==== Transliteration/Phonetic methods ==== English is used to type in Indian languages. QuillPad IndiSMS ==== Native methods ==== In native methods, the letters of the language are displayed on the screen corresponding to the numeral keys based on the probabilities of those letters for that language. Additional letters can be accessed by using a special key. When a word is partially typed, options are presented from which the user can make a selection. === Smart phones with Qwerty keyboards === Most smart phones have about 35 keys catering primarily to the English language. Numerals and some symbols are accessed with a special key called Alt. Indic input methods are yet to evolve for these types of phones, as support of Unicode for rendering is not widely available. === For Smart Phones with Soft/Virtual keyboards === Inscript is being adopted for smart phone usage. For Android phones which can render Indic languages, Swalekh Multilingual Keypad Multiling Keyboard app are available. Gboard offers support for several Indian languages. == Localization == Localization means translating software, operating systems, websites etc. various applications in Indian language. Various volunteers groups are working in this direction. === Mandrake Tamil Version === A notable example is the Tamil version of Mandrake linux(defunct since 2011). Tamil speakers in Toronto (Canada) released Mandrake,
AI Coding Assistants: Free vs Paid (2026)
In search of the best AI coding assistant? An AI coding assistant is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI coding assistant slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.