From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean-Christophe Helary Subject: Re: Localized org-mode Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 09:29:41 +0900 Message-ID: <5EE3D3F1-C41E-4BBA-BEEE-9964359929CA@gmail.com> References: <1525784567.2021.47.camel@gmail.com> <87bmdqtf01.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <1525801068.2021.56.camel@gmail.com> <87bmdqrosp.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <1525851919.2021.66.camel@gmail.com> <877eodutq2.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <0702E659-EAA4-4767-B209-308E535C670A@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\)) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4B4FDE23-2C08-45CC-8270-65D676504CA4" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58755) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fHIQ3-0007qz-LS for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 11 May 2018 20:29:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fHIQ0-0006iV-Fv for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 11 May 2018 20:29:51 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-x232.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c05::232]:39793) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fHIQ0-0006hm-2D for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 11 May 2018 20:29:48 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-x232.google.com with SMTP id e1-v6so3071220pga.6 for ; Fri, 11 May 2018 17:29:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.7] (pl31219.ag0304.nttpc.ne.jp. [111.89.224.243]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a77-v6sm8427919pfe.70.2018.05.11.17.29.43 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 11 May 2018 17:29:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: Org-mode --Apple-Mail=_4B4FDE23-2C08-45CC-8270-65D676504CA4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On May 12, 2018, at 7:23, G=C3=B6ktu=C4=9F Kayaalp = wrote: >=20 >>> I really don't see the point of trying to localize org keywords. To >>> me, they are like the keywords in any programming language - part of >>> the language. Would you consider translating C or LISP keywords? >>=20 >> There are no practical reasons why that should not be possible. The >> current state of affairs is only due to design constraints when the >> languages were conceived. >>=20 >> In Scheme, for ex. you can actually redefine all the language = keywords >> very easily without any impact on the interpreter. >=20 > Practical reason: communication. I'm a Turkish speaker, suppose I'm > monolingual, and I have a problem with the function > =E2=80=98g=C3=BCncel-devamla-=C3=A7a=C4=9F=C4=B1r=E2=80=99 in Scheme. If you have a problem with that function and you use Scheme, you know = that it is mapped to call-with-current-continuation and you know where = to look for information. And if you're monolingual, chances are that you = won't be able to make sense of what you find in English. > The language of programming is English. And of course, when 2 Turkish programmers talk about programming they = shift to English... No, they don't. Keywords are arbitrary strings. Try = APL and see how "English" applies. > Org allows drawers with > arbitrary names to be defined (e.g. I have :remotes:\n...\n:end: or > :NEXT:\n...\n:END: in a file), with a couple names like :PROPERTIES: = and > :LOGBOOK: reserved. This means that you can't reliably know if = anybody > has :PROPRI=C3=89T=C3=89S: or :PROPRIET=C3=80:, which renders = translations impossible. > Same thing with todo keywords, tags, etc. And that is a good thing. >> Localization, when properly done is never a nightmare to maintain. >=20 > I appreciate your efforts on i18n and l10n on Emacs, but unfortunately = I > am yet to find a properly localised piece of software, especially in = the > FOSS community. Proprietary software has so many issues that most pro-grade software is = not even localized. > Also, when I need help online, I need the English > messages anyways (and translated manuals, if they ever exist, are a = joke > all the time). If FOSS activists took as much time fixing manuals as they take for = fixing code that would not be an issue. l10n is not as good as code = *because* it is not defined with a higher priority and a better = consciousness of the linguistic issues, and that is because monolingual = activists think one language is sufficient (funny how that does not = apply to programming languages, but they don't seem to be conscious of = that contradiction...) Jean-Christophe Helary ----------------------------------------------- http://mac4translators.blogspot.com @brandelune --Apple-Mail=_4B4FDE23-2C08-45CC-8270-65D676504CA4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

On May 12, 2018, at 7:23, G=C3=B6ktu=C4=9F Kayaalp <self@gkayaalp.com> = wrote:

I really don't see the point of trying to localize org = keywords. To
me, they are like the keywords in any = programming language - part of
the language. Would you = consider translating C or LISP keywords?

There are no practical reasons why that should not be = possible. The
current state of affairs is only due to = design constraints when the
languages were conceived.

In Scheme, for ex. you can actually redefine = all the language keywords
very easily without any impact = on the interpreter.

Practical = reason: communication.  I'm a Turkish speaker, suppose I'm
monolingual, and I have a problem with the function
=E2=80=98g=C3=BCncel-devamla-=C3=A7a=C4=9F=C4=B1r=E2=80=99 in = Scheme.

If you = have a problem with that function and you use Scheme, you know that it = is mapped to call-with-current-continuation and you know where to look = for information. And if you're monolingual, chances are that you won't = be able to make sense of what you find in English.

The language of programming is = English.

And of = course, when 2 Turkish programmers talk about programming they shift to = English... No, they don't. Keywords are arbitrary strings. Try APL and = see how "English" applies.

Org allows = drawers with
arbitrary names to be defined (e.g. I have = :remotes:\n...\n:end: or
:NEXT:\n...\n:END: in a file), = with a couple names like :PROPERTIES: and
:LOGBOOK: = reserved.  This means that you can't reliably know if anybody
has :PROPRI=C3=89T=C3=89S: or :PROPRIET=C3=80:, which renders = translations impossible.
Same thing with todo keywords, = tags, etc.

And that is a good thing.

Localization, when = properly done is never a nightmare to maintain.

I appreciate your efforts on i18n = and l10n on Emacs, but unfortunately I
am yet to find a = properly localised piece of software, especially in the
FOSS= community.

Proprietary software has so many issues that most = pro-grade software is not even localized.

 Also, = when I need help online, I need the English
messages = anyways (and translated manuals, if they ever exist, are a joke
all the time).

If FOSS activists took as much time fixing manuals = as they take for fixing code that would not be an issue. l10n is not as = good as code *because* it is not defined with a higher priority and a = better consciousness of the linguistic issues, and that is because = monolingual activists think one language is sufficient (funny how that = does not apply to programming languages, but they don't seem to be = conscious of that contradiction...)


Jean-Christophe Helary
-----------------------------------------------
http://mac4translators.blogspot.com @brandelune


= --Apple-Mail=_4B4FDE23-2C08-45CC-8270-65D676504CA4--