🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3453@uc.msc.umn.edu>, jps@uh (Jeff P. Sorvik) writes:
>Does anyone have recommendations regarding the best Grammer checker ...?
                                    spelling checker, too ^

Look, folks, please do some basic research before posting these questions...
Here's the relevant paragraph from the old.questions file.

S: Grammar checker
Q: afmintz@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allan Mintz) 8 Apr 90
Q: ries@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Marc Ries) 30 Apr 90
R: dlu@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Dan Lu) 9 Apr 90
>Grammatik III, from Reference Software, Inc., 330 Townsend Street,
>Suite 123, San Francisco, CA 94107.  Also a program called RightWriter.
R: ftw33616@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Frank) 29 Apr 90
>Grammatik IV has been released.  I find a pretty fair number of its
>comments to be useless, but I still use it to find passive voice, &
>things like a word typed twicece, spelling, & basically, a guide to
>write by.  But on the whole, It's not a bad product.
R: steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) 3 May 90
>Comparing Grammatik with RightWriter.  According to the review there
>is no comparison.  Grammatik is what you want.  New version of
>Grammatik described on p16 of April 30 1990 issue of InfoWorld.
Q: komatsu@aludra.usc.edu [Grammatik II Pro + Ami Pro. Editor] 19 May 90
Q: eakin@rsmas.miami.edu (C. Mark Eakin) [Grammatik III + WP5.0] 26 Apr 90
Q: davec@maxwell.Concordia.CA (Dave Chu) 2 Oct 90
R: dak@hpausla.aso.hp.com (Dave Kruger) 9 Oct 90
>Grammatik is worth every penny.
R: bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) 10 Oct 90
>RightWriter [cites] two studies [which] rated ... grammar checkers ...
>based on the number of *incorrect* grammar recommendations.
>RightWriter averaged  13%, the nearest competitor was about 35% and
>the worst was 85%.
Q: alan@pluto.dss.com (Alan Warwick) 1 Nov 90
R: clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kathy Strong) 3 Nov 90
>I've heard that both Grammatik and Sensible Grammar are okay.
R: boulder!bohemia!Greg.Smith (Greg Smith) 3 Nov 90
>Grammatick IV supports most popular wordprocessors.