OSDev.org

Brendan wrote:Please note that the combination of i) and j) make it easy for the IDE to work in tokens rather than text. For example, you might select 4 lines of source code and click the "while" icon, and the IDE would insert the tokens for "while" and "end_while" into your source code and display them according to user preferences (e.g. "terwijl () { }" for Dutch programmers, "wahrend() {}" for German, "alors que () { ... }" for French, "mentre () { ... }" for Italian, and maybe an animation of a mouse on a treadmill for children).

Combuster wrote:

Brendan wrote:Please note that the combination of i) and j) make it easy for the IDE to work in tokens rather than text. For example, you might select 4 lines of source code and click the "while" icon, and the IDE would insert the tokens for "while" and "end_while" into your source code and display them according to user preferences (e.g. "terwijl () { }" for Dutch programmers, "wahrend() {}" for German, "alors que () { ... }" for French, "mentre () { ... }" for Italian, and maybe an animation of a mouse on a treadmill for children).

My variation of logo contains both English and Dutch keywords and will try to parse keywords in either. That comes with the added feature that some programs start doing completely different things when the language is changed because the same word in English happened to mean something different in Dutch.

But in general, writing code in something other than English makes it less maintainable anyway...

I don't know how easy or difficult it is for a Chinese keyboard layout to type an English word.

Combuster wrote:You missed that automatic translation does not solve the original problem of antonyms at all. The other end might occasionally end up with two functions having identical names but doing completely different things. The other logical alternative of manual translation is well, manual and obviously counterproductive.

int void(void) { int for; int while = 0; int do = 999; do {
for = while; while++; } while(for != do); return for; }

Combuster wrote:Not to mention that if you're having a live conversation you're literally talking about two different terms for everything code-related.

Combuster wrote:I fail to see "all code in English" disappearing from a company's manual of style for a really long time.

bewing wrote:Beyond that, there are many computer languages out there. To learn how to program, you need to basically learn how to work with all of them. If you create an artificial situation that makes programming trivially simple -- then your victims will still have completely failed to learn how to program, because they won't have a clue how to use any other language. To learn how to do a task, that task needs to be at least a little difficult. Otherwise you won't pay attention, and you won't learn anything.

Brendan wrote:Even without any graphical hints at all, people are good at figuring things out from context.

Now = Val

Combuster wrote:I fail to see "all code in English" disappearing from a company's manual of style for a really long time.

A company's manual of style is another thing that is stupid and unnecessary. (...)

OSwhatever wrote:For example, I don't know how easy or difficult it is for a Chinese keyboard layout to type an English word.

dozniak wrote:

bewing wrote:...

This may be true for your today's definition of "programming". However, Bret (and Seymour for that matter) speak about redefining programming to be more available and creative activity. Try to stretch your imagination a bit.

Combuster wrote:

Brendan wrote:Even without any graphical hints at all, people are good at figuring things out from context.

Well, if I try the following in basic, can you tell me if it is a translated keyword or a variable?

Code: Select all

Now = Val

Am I setting the system clock or not?

Combuster wrote:

Combuster wrote:I fail to see "all code in English" disappearing from a company's manual of style for a really long time.

A company's manual of style is another thing that is stupid and unnecessary. (...)

You only covered the religious subjects, not the remaining two-thirds that actually matter, nor have you provided any argument against the opening point in particular. To add another example, certain questionable (anti)patterns specific to my area of expertise are punishable by mandatory piebaking where I come from.

    assert(x > 0);

loop:
   if(y == 1) {
        y = x / 123;
        x++;
        goto loop;
    }

• (x > 0)

loop:

• (y == 1)
  • y = x / 123
    x++
    loop

Brendan wrote:"Now" is a function

Combuster wrote:

Brendan wrote:"Now" is a function

Keyword, thank you. And in the context it follows all syntax rules of variables, just like errno does in C (and there are many more constructs across languages where setter and getter functions have assignment syntax).