Hacker News Reader

Comment by CyberDildonics | Hacker News Reader

You say python is an inspiration, but how is this better than just using opencv from python?

VisionScript goes beyond OpenCV in terms of utilities, providing models for use out of the box.

To classify images, you can use Classify["class 1", "class 2", ...]; to run object detection you can use Detect["object"]; to run segmentation, use Segment["class"]. More abstract methods include Search[], that lets you build a semantic search engine in a few lines of code:

    Load["./folder/"]
    Search["coffee cup"]
    Get[1] # get the top result
    Show[]

I am aiming to encode best practices from computer vision behind the scenes (I work in the industry) to enable one to build powerful applications intuitively, with few lines of code!

Why do you need a new language with new syntax to do this instead of making a Python library?

  vision = Vision()
  
  (vision
    .load("./folder/")
    .search("coffee cup")
    .get(1)
    .show()
  )

I think unless your language semantically does something really different it's almost always a mistake to make a new one. Adding global state and replacing () with [] doesn't seem worth losing compatibility with the rest of the ML/CV ecosystem, and forcing people to learn syntax just for this.

VisionScript goes beyond OpenCV in terms of utilities, providing models for use out of the box.

That's great, but I have to agree with chpatrick that this seems like a cool library but it is unlikely to get used as a stand alone language.

New languages cut off a huge amount of utility. Decades of IO, libraries, tools, built in features, gc refinement etc. go out of the window. I'm not sure what the advantage is. If it is a simple standalone library that has advantages over other things out there it stands a lot more chance of being used.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com