4 ms·
They don't seem to distinguish between the language itself and the API. I'd think for many languages the core keywords wouldn't be too hard to translate... Tran
by jwilliams 18y ago
They don't seem to distinguish between the language itself and the API. I'd think for many languages the core keywords wouldn't be too hard to translate... Translating the .NET API would be a bigger call (there seem to be examples of this there).
- barredo 18y agoHow many words a non-native-english speaker programmer (like me) has to learn? I bet no more than 30-50. It's not a a problem for 99% of programmers, so that's the reason most of languages stayed in English without the need of being translated
- jwilliams 18y agoYeah I agree - Their use in a programming language is generally so abstract. Knowing the words "for" or "do" doesn't really help a whole lot in understanding a loop construct. This isn't true for the API though - the API contains a much greater lexicon.
- shiro 18y agoYeah, just translating keywords doesn't make language very different. But languages such as Nadeshiko (なでしこ) http://nadesi.com/ http://nadesi.com/, a Japanese programming language, may be a challenge for non-Japanese speakers. Its source, especially one- or two-liners, just look like natural Japanese sentences. That means there's no explicit word boundary, and the parsing is based on the particles instead of word positions. (Longer program shows indentations and structures, makes it resembles to other proramming languages). It's not a joke or experimental language. It aims at scripting for end users, and has pretty decent GUI/database/network bindings. Even a book was published.