2 ms·
I definitely agree that localized languages can only reflect a subset of human languages (and it's of course true even for English-based languages), but that do
by lifthrasiir 6y ago
I definitely agree that localized languages can only reflect a subset of human languages (and it's of course true even for English-based languages), but that doesn't make my point moot. If the author did really care about other languages and wanted to pursue the fixed syntax, every identifier should have been strictly nouns or verbs and nothing else; for example (say) `animate(source: X, target: Y)` instead of `animate(from: X, to: Y)`.
- hhas01 6y ago“every identifier should have been strictly nouns or verbs and nothing else” Totally agree. TBH I don’t think the authors’ enthusiasm, while admirable, is quite matched by their knowledge and experience. A bit more up-front learning could probably save them disappearing down some obviously wrong paths. As you say, they should focus on verbs and nouns, and getting those to machine-translate precisely. Nailing that would be a big deal just in itself. If they later want to experiment with adding prepositions to make code read “more naturally”, make the system add those on a per-language basis according to per-language rules laid down by native-language speakers. Thus in English the method signature might present as `animate(from: source, to: target)`, because that’s what English readers expect and like. But that doesn’t mean that `from` and `to` should be translated to every other language, because that’s just an exercise in cutesy-clever nonsense, burying what is significant under what is not, and software already suffers from more than enough of that.