On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Jean-Christophe Helary <brandelune@gmail.com
> wrote:

> You misquoted me. I was talking about design constraints when C and Lisp
> were created, which kept language creators from "inventing" proper language
> localization. I was specifically replying to Diego Zamboni regarding that.
>

I don't think it was only those constraints. Imagine if C and LISP had been
designed with "keywords in your own language" in mind. I'm pretty surre
that would have largely impeded the proliferation of compilers/interpreters
that made possible the explosion of those, and many other, languages.

I fully agree with Nicolas that in this context, localization should be a
display problem and not involve modifying the source. Take for example the
educational language Scratch (https://scratch.mit.edu/), in which you can
localize the language (i.e. the blocks with which you build your programs).
However, if you download the source for your program (it's a JSON file),
it's always the same, no matter in which language you have the interface.

As a first step, you can already configure Emacs so that the markup is
minimally visible. Look at this screenshot, for example:
http://zzamboni.org/post/beautifying-org-mode-in-emacs/emacs-init-propfonts.png.
Most of the formatting is visually communicated, you can only see a few
keywords (properties, begin_src, etc.). It really is very non-intrusive in
my opinion.

--Diego