5 ms·

> The one thing English has going for it is the ease of typing it on any keyboard everywhere. Is that an inherent property of English, or because we haven't in

> The one thing English has going for it is the ease of typing it on any keyboard everywhere. Is that an inherent property of English, or because we haven't invested enough effort into making non-English keyboards better? Here's an interesting bit of data: ever since Google added support for Hindi in Google Assistant, it has become the second most used language used for voice search globally [1]. I don't know about other countries, but there's definitely a demand for non-English languages on computers in India. > Romanizations are fine too. No they're not. It implies you have knowledge of two separate languages, two separate writing systems, and the ability to convert between them. This is not always the case. People do write Romanized Hindi (and Tamil, Kannada, etc) in India, but that has more to do with the lack of native keyboards than anything else. With the rise of mobile devices, more people are writing Indian languages in their native scripts, thanks of the excellent work Google and Apple have done with their keyboards. I'm as much a native English speaker as I am a Hindi speaker, and I'm entirely unwilling to accept a worse experience for either of these languages on my devices. Language is part of people's identities, and you can't really divorce language from script without losing something of its character in the process. People across the world have protested and rioted for their right to use their own languages. Governments are elected based on language issues. Supporting your target audience's primary language is part of your job as a good engineer, whether your target audience is non-tech people or other developers. Where is this unwillingness to support multiple languages in software coming from, anyway? [1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/hindi-second-most-used-assistant-language-globally-says-google/articleshow/71206202.cms?from=mdr https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/hindi-sec...

brainwad 7y ago
We're talking about programmers; they have to be able to type english words because almost every language uses english keywords and most command line tools use english, etc. Since everyone has to be able to type english words, why add new character sets to the requirements?
big_chungus 7y ago
> Is that [ease of typing it on any keyboard] an inherent property of English, or because we haven't invested enough effort into making non-English keyboards better? Not of English inherently, more a feature of a language that uses a small set of symbols with many different combinations. The simplest and easiest approach is to give each button a symbol; it's also typically faster than typing on, say, some sort of touch-input keyboard. I agree that there is demand, but English still makes sense for development. > People do write Romanized Hindi... in India, but that has more to do with the lack of native keyboards than anything else. And I am stuck using SI units for science, even though I have a preference for American units. Compatibility is important, and as you just stated, people have adapted. > Where is this unwillingness to support multiple languages in software coming from, anyway? Immense difficulty for minimal return. About two months ago, and article was posted about just how difficult it can be: https://gankra.github.io/blah/text-hates-you/ https://gankra.github.io/blah/text-hates-you/ Even if many programmers aren't dealing directly with the rendering, UI design is a huge pain. Coupled with the fact that many countries with languages more difficult to support have fewer users, it can be a simple business decision. I can see why a consumer-friendly interface probably should have multi-lingual support (especially if it has a large, non-English user-base), but development tooling operates at a lower level where more computer-friendly representations are necessary. It also has to be able to all work together under the hood, which requires a common language. English ended up the lingua franca, partly because computers were developed largely in America and partly because English text happens to simply be easier to represent than other languages, at least for computers.
OJFord 7y ago
Not to mention that transliterations aren't standardised (or rather, there are competing standards, and casually/colloquially people don't use any of them). Even popular films released with Latin-alphabet names don't use the International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST) for example. It makes it hard as someone learning Hindi, because I might read or someone tells it's spelt 'k, u, l', but actually it's 'ka, la', i.e. kal or कल (yesterday/tomorrow) for example. (And that's a common example, becauss IAST uses 'a' for inherent vowel, but many people write 'u', which is arguably often closer to the right sound if read as English, but that's probably not a high priority goal of IAST.)
GuB-42 7y ago
> Is that an inherent property of English, or because we haven't invested enough effort into making non-English keyboards better? It is an inherent property of English, at least in some way. English doesn't use diacritics or letters like the German "ß". It is the least common denominator of western languages. AFAIK, languages that don't have English letters use an entirely different script, and considering that most programming languages, command lines, etc... use English, you need to be able to write English in addition to your native language. English also have the interesting property that it is really simple to render, which makes it ideal for embedded software, low resolution screens, etc... Chinese a much too complicated, and even Hindi requires you to combine things.

brainwad 7y ago

We're talking about programmers; they have to be able to type english words because almost every language uses english keywords and most command line tools use english, etc. Since everyone has to be able to type english words, why add new character sets to the requirements?

big_chungus 7y ago

> Is that [ease of typing it on any keyboard] an inherent property of English, or because we haven't invested enough effort into making non-English keyboards better? Not of English inherently, more a feature of a language that uses a small set of symbols with many different combinations. The simplest and easiest approach is to give each button a symbol; it's also typically faster than typing on, say, some sort of touch-input keyboard. I agree that there is demand, but English still makes sense for development. > People do write Romanized Hindi... in India, but that has more to do with the lack of native keyboards than anything else. And I am stuck using SI units for science, even though I have a preference for American units. Compatibility is important, and as you just stated, people have adapted. > Where is this unwillingness to support multiple languages in software coming from, anyway? Immense difficulty for minimal return. About two months ago, and article was posted about just how difficult it can be: https://gankra.github.io/blah/text-hates-you/ https://gankra.github.io/blah/text-hates-you/ Even if many programmers aren't dealing directly with the rendering, UI design is a huge pain. Coupled with the fact that many countries with languages more difficult to support have fewer users, it can be a simple business decision. I can see why a consumer-friendly interface probably should have multi-lingual support (especially if it has a large, non-English user-base), but development tooling operates at a lower level where more computer-friendly representations are necessary. It also has to be able to all work together under the hood, which requires a common language. English ended up the lingua franca, partly because computers were developed largely in America and partly because English text happens to simply be easier to represent than other languages, at least for computers.

OJFord 7y ago

Not to mention that transliterations aren't standardised (or rather, there are competing standards, and casually/colloquially people don't use any of them). Even popular films released with Latin-alphabet names don't use the International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST) for example. It makes it hard as someone learning Hindi, because I might read or someone tells it's spelt 'k, u, l', but actually it's 'ka, la', i.e. kal or कल (yesterday/tomorrow) for example. (And that's a common example, becauss IAST uses 'a' for inherent vowel, but many people write 'u', which is arguably often closer to the right sound if read as English, but that's probably not a high priority goal of IAST.)

GuB-42 7y ago

> Is that an inherent property of English, or because we haven't invested enough effort into making non-English keyboards better? It is an inherent property of English, at least in some way. English doesn't use diacritics or letters like the German "ß". It is the least common denominator of western languages. AFAIK, languages that don't have English letters use an entirely different script, and considering that most programming languages, command lines, etc... use English, you need to be able to write English in addition to your native language. English also have the interesting property that it is really simple to render, which makes it ideal for embedded software, low resolution screens, etc... Chinese a much too complicated, and even Hindi requires you to combine things.