Am Mon, 27 May 2013 16:05:46 -0700
schrieb Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com>:

> On 5/27/2013 3:18 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > Well, D *does* support non-English identifiers, y'know... for example:
> >
> > 	void main(string[] args) {
> > 		int число = 1;
> > 		foreach (и; 0..100)
> > 			число += и;
> > 		writeln(число);
> > 	}
> >
> > Of course, whether that's a good practice is a different story. :)
> 
> I've recently come to the opinion that that's a bad idea, and D should not support it.

I hope that was just a random thought. I knew a teacher who
would give all his methods German names so they are easier to
distinguish from the English Java library methods.
Personally I like to type α instead of alpha for angles, since
that is the identifier you'd expect in math. And everyone
likes "alias ℕ = size_t;", right? :) Déjà vu?

-- 
Marco

On Tuesday, 28 May 2013 at 00:11:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/27/2013 4:28 PM, Hans W. Uhlig wrote:
>> On Monday, 27 May 2013 at 23:05:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> I've recently come to the opinion that that's a bad idea, and D should not
>>> support it.
>>
>> Why do you think its a bad idea? It makes it such that code can be in various
>> languages? Just lack of keyboard support?
>
> Every time I've been to a programming shop in a foreign country, the developers speak english at work and code in english. Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone does, but as far as I can tell the overwhelming bulk is done in english.
>
> Naturally, full Unicode needs to be in strings and comments, but symbol names? I don't see the point nor the utilty of it. Supporting such is just pointless complexity to the language.

Once I heared an argument from developers working for banks. They coded business-specific stuff in Java. Business-specific meant financial concepts with german names (e.g. Vermögen,Bürgschaft), which sometimes include äöüß. Some of those concept had no good translation into english, because they are not used outside of Germany and the clients prefer the actual names anyways.

My personal opinion is that code should only be in English.

On 5/29/2013 3:26 AM, qznc wrote:
> Once I heared an argument from developers working for banks. They coded
> business-specific stuff in Java. Business-specific meant financial concepts with
> german names (e.g. Vermögen,Bürgschaft), which sometimes include äöüß. Some of
> those concept had no good translation into english, because they are not used
> outside of Germany and the clients prefer the actual names anyways.

German is pretty easy to do in ASCII: Vermoegen and Buergschaft

On 5/29/2013 2:42 AM, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
> On Monday, 27 May 2013 at 23:05:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> I've recently come to the opinion that that's a bad idea, and D should not
>> support it.
>
> Honestly, removing support for non-ASCII characters from identifiers is the
> worst idea you've had in a while. There is an _unfathomable amount_ of code out
> there written in non-English languages but hamfisted into an English-alphabet
> representation because the programming language doesn't care to support it. The
> resulting friction is considerable.
>
> You seem to attribute particular value to personal anecdotes, so here's one of
> mine: I personally know several prestigious universities in Europe and Asia
> which teach programming using Java and/or C with identifiers being in an
> English-alphabet representation of the native non-English language. Using the
> English language for identifiers is usually a sanctioned alternative, but not
> the primary modus operandi. I also know several professional programmers using
> their native non-English language for identifiers in production code.
>
> Please reconsider.

I still think it's a bad idea, but it's obvious people want it in D, so it'll stay.

(Also note that I meant using ASCII, not necessarily english.)

Am Wed, 29 May 2013 15:44:17 -0700
schrieb Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com>:

> I still think it's a bad idea, but it's obvious people want it in D, so it'll stay.
> 
> (Also note that I meant using ASCII, not necessarily english.)

Surprisingly ASCII also covers Cornish and Malay.

-- 
Marco

Am Sun, 26 May 2013 21:25:36 +0200
schrieb "Joakim" <joakim@airpost.net>:

> On Sunday, 26 May 2013 at 19:11:42 UTC, Mr. Anonymous wrote:
> > On Sunday, 26 May 2013 at 19:05:32 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> >> On Sunday, 26 May 2013 at 18:29:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >>> On 5/26/13 1:45 PM, Joakim wrote:
> >>>> What is extraordinary about "UTF-8 is shit?" It is obviously so.
> >>>
> >>> Congratulations, you are literally the only person on the Internet who said so: http://goo.gl/TFhUO
> >> Haha, that is funny, :D though "unicode is shit" returns at least 8 results.  How many people even know how UTF-8 works? Given how few people use it, I'm not surprised most don't know enough about how it works to criticize it.
> >
> > On the other hand: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22utf-8+is+awesome%22
> I'm not sure if you were trying to make my point, but you just did.  There are only 19 results for that search string.  If UTF-8 were such a rousing success and most developers found it easy to understand, you wouldn't expect only 19 results for it and 8 against it.  The paucity of results suggests most don't know how it works or perhaps simply annoyed by it, liking the internationalization but disliking the complexity.

Lol, https://www.google.com/search?q=%22utf-8+is+the+best%22

-- 
Marco

On 30/05/13 08:40, Entry wrote:
> My personal opinion is that code should only be in English.

But why would you want to impose this restriction on others?

Peter

On Wednesday, 29 May 2013 at 22:44:17 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> I still think it's a bad idea, but it's obvious people want it in D, so it'll stay.
>
> (Also note that I meant using ASCII, not necessarily english.)

Good, thanks, restrictions definetelly can and should be applied per project, like for druntime/Phobos.

On Wednesday, 29 May 2013 at 23:40:51 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
> Am Sun, 26 May 2013 21:25:36 +0200
> schrieb "Joakim" <joakim@airpost.net>:
>
>> On Sunday, 26 May 2013 at 19:11:42 UTC, Mr. Anonymous wrote:
>> > On Sunday, 26 May 2013 at 19:05:32 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, 26 May 2013 at 18:29:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> >>> On 5/26/13 1:45 PM, Joakim wrote:
>> >>>> What is extraordinary about "UTF-8 is shit?" It is obviously so.
>> >>>
>> >>> Congratulations, you are literally the only person on the Internet who said so: http://goo.gl/TFhUO
>> >> Haha, that is funny, :D though "unicode is shit" returns at least 8 results.  How many people even know how UTF-8 works?  Given how few people use it, I'm not surprised most don't know enough about how it works to criticize it.
>> >
>> > On the other hand:
>> > https://www.google.com/search?q=%22utf-8+is+awesome%22
>> I'm not sure if you were trying to make my point, but you just did.  There are only 19 results for that search string.  If UTF-8 were such a rousing success and most developers found it easy to understand, you wouldn't expect only 19 results for it and 8 against it.  The paucity of results suggests most don't know how it works or perhaps simply annoyed by it, liking the internationalization but disliking the complexity.
>
> Lol, https://www.google.com/search?q=%22utf-8+is+the+best%22
Your point is?  121 results, including false positives like
"utf-8 is the best guess."  If you look at the results, almost
all make the pragmatic recommendation that UTF-8 is the best _for
now_, because it is better supported than other multi-language
formats.  That's like saying Windows is the best OS because it's
easier to find one in your local computer store.

Yet again, the fact that even this somewhat ambiguous search
string has only 121 results is damning of anyone liking UTF-8,
nothing else, given the many thousands of programmmers that are
forced to use Unicode if they want to internationalize.