Re: Localized org-mode

["Göktuğ Kayaalp" <self@gkayaalp.com>]

On 2018-05-12 09:29 +09, Jean-Christophe Helary <brandelune@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 12, 2018, at 7:23, Göktuğ Kayaalp <self@gkayaalp.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>> ‘güncel-devamla-çağır’ 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.

How do you know that if you first learned the translated version?  What
do you do if in such a situation you have a long stack trace?  Translate
it before debugging?  Well, in lisp that can be automatic, but even then
I bet it will be popular.  The wikipedia page ‘Non-English-based
programming languages’ is not empty.  And nobody got out of their way to
localise existing languages that allow that to be done easily is telling
(Lisp, Perl).

>> 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.

We do, actually, kind of.  We probably use more English words than
Turkish words in that context.

>>  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...)

There are no «monolingual activists», but just people using the best
available thing.  I myself speak two languages apart form my native
Turkish, learning a third, can read a couple others, and have the desire
to learn more; so I'm no monolingual.  Thing with programming languages
is that them being in one natural language or another does not mean
much; but one programming language may have some features that the other
does not.  And manuals are already insufficent in English itself (very
few projects with good docs exist, one of which is luckily Emacs), let
aside translations.

I guess we're quite off-topic here.

All the best,

-- 
İ. Göktuğ Kayaalp	<https://www.gkayaalp.com/>
			 024C 30DD 597D 142B 49AC
			 40EB 465C D949 B101 2427