From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Diego Zamboni Subject: Re: Localized org-mode Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 17:41:26 +0200 Message-ID: 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> <87k1sdt0zy.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <236BE792-CCFF-452A-950A-CC4D3A139978@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000062c611056bc7bc89" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38071) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fGRDf-0002xC-Iv for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2018 11:41:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fGRDc-0001yZ-BT for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2018 11:41:31 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-x235.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::235]:34612) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fGRDb-0001wb-VL for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2018 11:41:28 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-x235.google.com with SMTP id a137-v6so23882162wme.1 for ; Wed, 09 May 2018 08:41:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <236BE792-CCFF-452A-950A-CC4D3A139978@gmail.com> 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: Jean-Christophe Helary Cc: Org-mode --00000000000062c611056bc7bc89 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Jean-Christophe Helary 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 --00000000000062c611056bc7bc89 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Jean-Christophe Helary &l= t;brandelune@gmai= l.com> wrote:
You misquoted me. I was talking a= bout design constraints when C and Lisp were created, which kept language c= reators from "inventing" proper language localization. I was spec= ifically replying to Diego Zamboni regarding that.
=
I don't think it was only those co= nstraints. Imagine if C and LISP had been designed with "keywords in y= our own language" in mind. I'm pretty surre that would have largel= y impeded the proliferation of compilers/interpreters that made possible th= e 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 m= odifying the source. Take for example the educational language Scratch (https://scratch.mit.edu/), in which y= ou can localize the language (i.e. the blocks with which you build your pro= grams). However, if you download the source for your program (it's a JS= ON file), it's always the same, no matter in which language you have th= e interface.

As a first step, you can already configure Emacs so that the markup = is minimally visible. Look at this screenshot, for example:=C2=A0http://zzamboni.org/post/beautifying-org-mode-in-emacs/emacs-init-pr= opfonts.png. Most of the formatting is visually communicated, you can o= nly see a few keywords (properties, begin_src, etc.). It really is very non= -intrusive in my opinion.

--Diego

--00000000000062c611056bc7bc89--