On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 11:29:47 UTC, Manu wrote:
> Have you ever worked on code written by people who barely speak English?
> Even if they write English words, that doesn't make it 'English', or any
> easier to understand. And people often tend to just transliterate into
> latin, which is kinda pointless too, how does that help?

I have had comments with Finnish poetry in code I was responsible to support :( No need to provide means to think such approach is the way to go.

On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 09:29:43 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 08:32:01 UTC, Entry wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 29 May 2013 at 23:57:01 UTC, Peter Williams wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> I wouldn't say impose. I'd say that programming in a unified language (D) should not be sabotaged by comments and variable names in various human languages (Swedish, Russian), but be accompanied by a similarly 'unified' language that we all know - English. It is only my opinion though and I wouldn't force it upon anyone.
>
> But programming IS a human tool, and thus, subject to human language.
>
> Also, I don't see how a programming language is any more unified than, say, a library.
>
> While you wouldn't force it on anyone, would it also be your opinion that putting a French book in a french library be a sabotage of the world's librarial institutions?

What a way to attack a straw-man and completely miss the point at the same time.

On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 13:12:17 UTC, Entry wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 09:29:43 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
>> On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 08:32:01 UTC, Entry wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 29 May 2013 at 23:57:01 UTC, Peter Williams wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> I wouldn't say impose. I'd say that programming in a unified language (D) should not be sabotaged by comments and variable names in various human languages (Swedish, Russian), but be accompanied by a similarly 'unified' language that we all know - English. It is only my opinion though and I wouldn't force it upon anyone.
>>
>> But programming IS a human tool, and thus, subject to human language.
>>
>> Also, I don't see how a programming language is any more unified than, say, a library.
>>
>> While you wouldn't force it on anyone, would it also be your opinion that putting a French book in a french library be a sabotage of the world's librarial institutions?
>
> What a way to attack a straw-man and completely miss the point at the same time.

Fine.

In that case, I'll retort by saying that you use of the 'unified' is intentionally loaded to favor your stance.

My retort was not correctly expressed, but I don't see how D is "unified". I thought it was just a tool to create programs.

On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 13:52:09 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 13:12:17 UTC, Entry wrote:
>> On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 09:29:43 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 08:32:01 UTC, Entry wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 29 May 2013 at 23:57:01 UTC, Peter Williams wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't say impose. I'd say that programming in a unified language (D) should not be sabotaged by comments and variable names in various human languages (Swedish, Russian), but be accompanied by a similarly 'unified' language that we all know - English. It is only my opinion though and I wouldn't force it upon anyone.
>>>
>>> But programming IS a human tool, and thus, subject to human language.
>>>
>>> Also, I don't see how a programming language is any more unified than, say, a library.
>>>
>>> While you wouldn't force it on anyone, would it also be your opinion that putting a French book in a french library be a sabotage of the world's librarial institutions?
>>
>> What a way to attack a straw-man and completely miss the point at the same time.
>
> Fine.
>
> In that case, I'll retort by saying that you use of the 'unified' is intentionally loaded to favor your stance.
>
> My retort was not correctly expressed, but I don't see how D is "unified". I thought it was just a tool to create programs.

Take a minute to think about why we're all communicating in English here. Let's see if you can figure it out. I just think that it's better to focus on two very specific languages with two very specific purposes (D for programming and English for communication). 'Twas just an idea, I don't care if you write your code in hieroglyphs.

On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 14:13:47 UTC, Entry wrote:
> Take a minute to think about why we're all communicating in English here. Let's see if you can figure it out.

Well that's condescending :/ and fallacious.

To answer your question, it may have something to do with the fact that these are the English forums? Just a wild hunch. Oh. And because we *can* speak English? That could also have something to do with it.

There are tons of non-English speaking programming forums out there. Maybe those that don't speak English are over there? Heck, there are a few non-English threads in learn.

Oh. And did you know TDPL was published in Japanese? Why bother right?

> I just think that it's better to focus on two very specific languages with two very specific purposes (D for programming and English for communication). 'Twas just an idea, I don't care if you write your code in hieroglyphs.

I really really agree with you.

Yet, I think they are orthogonal concepts, and that the D programming language has no business choosing which communication vector its users should use.

It's not just a matter (imo) of "I wouldn't force it upon anyone", but "I think everyone should choose what's best for them".

Yeah. I know. Same conclusion, but there is a nuance.

On Wednesday, 29 May 2013 at 22:44:17 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> (Also note that I meant using ASCII, not necessarily english.)

I don't understand the logic behind this. Surely this is the worst combination; severely crippled ability to use non-English languages (yes, even for European languages), yet non-speakers of those languages still don't have a clue what it means.

On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 14:49:12 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 14:13:47 UTC, Entry wrote:
>> Take a minute to think about why we're all communicating in English here. Let's see if you can figure it out.
>
> Well that's condescending :/ and fallacious.
>
> To answer your question, it may have something to do with the fact that these are the English forums? Just a wild hunch. Oh. And because we *can* speak English? That could also have something to do with it.
>
> There are tons of non-English speaking programming forums out there. Maybe those that don't speak English are over there? Heck, there are a few non-English threads in learn.
>
> Oh. And did you know TDPL was published in Japanese? Why bother right?
>
>> I just think that it's better to focus on two very specific languages with two very specific purposes (D for programming and English for communication). 'Twas just an idea, I don't care if you write your code in hieroglyphs.
>
> I really really agree with you.
>
> Yet, I think they are orthogonal concepts, and that the D programming language has no business choosing which communication vector its users should use.
>
> It's not just a matter (imo) of "I wouldn't force it upon anyone", but "I think everyone should choose what's best for them".
>
> Yeah. I know. Same conclusion, but there is a nuance.

I'm glad you agree, though I believe that I never said anything about D 'choosing' which human languages are compatible with it. I just expressed my belief that should people choose to construct something, be it a ship or a computer program, the usage of a single language will greatly enhance their progress (ever heard the story of the Tower of Babel? wink wink). Sorry if my previous comment seemed hostile, that was not my intention.

On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 15:48:12 UTC, Entry wrote:
> I'm glad you agree, though I believe that I never said anything about D 'choosing' which human languages are compatible with it. I just expressed my belief that should people choose to construct something, be it a ship or a computer program, the usage of a single language will greatly enhance their progress (ever heard the story of the Tower of Babel? wink wink). Sorry if my previous comment seemed hostile, that was not my intention.

If the programmers who are going to be working on that code don't understand the "Single Language", then what use is it?

On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 16:05:13 UTC, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 15:48:12 UTC, Entry wrote:
>> I'm glad you agree, though I believe that I never said anything about D 'choosing' which human languages are compatible with it. I just expressed my belief that should people choose to construct something, be it a ship or a computer program, the usage of a single language will greatly enhance their progress (ever heard the story of the Tower of Babel? wink wink). Sorry if my previous comment seemed hostile, that was not my intention.
>
> If the programmers who are going to be working on that code don't understand the "Single Language", then what use is it?

Then there's no helping it. Though I wonder what kind of a programmer doesn't understand English enough to at least read the code and comments.

On 5/30/2013 4:24 AM, Manu wrote:
> We don't all know English. Plenty of people don't.
> I've worked a lot with Sony and Nintendo code/libraries, for instance, it almost
> always looks like this:
>
> {
>    // E: I like cake.
>    // J: ケーキが好きです。
>    player.eatCake();
> }
>
> Clearly someone doesn't speak English in these massive codebases that power an
> industry worth 10s of billions.

Sure, but the code itself is written using ASCII!