🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1043@bsu-cs.UUCP> neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP (Paul Neubauer) writes:
>We don't really need to worry about it [diacriticals in other languages]
>for C programs, since the characters needed for that are already known.

>Paul Neubauer 	UUCP:  {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!neubauer


Paul, your posting was fine except for this one lapse.  For some
number of years we have been getting away with assuming that English
is the universal programming language.  Since it is not proven that
programming has the same criticality as, say, piloting of ships and
airplanes, where such a rule makes sense, I expect programming in the
native tongue to become more widespread as programming becomes a more
worldwide activity.  In particular, for C, the use of "meaningful
identifiers" must imply "meaningful in the tongue of the reader".  We
can probably get away with english keywords, keywords have such
conventional meanings they are almost divorced from their common
English or other language meaning anyway, but I would expect to see
the alphabet in which C identifiers are written to vary to match the
needs of the language group using C.  This of course implies a lot of
new problems in code portability.  It is time to face these problems,
either by changing the de facto English predominance in coding to be
de jure, or else by providing for extended alphabet standards and
compliant compilers.

Gives a whole new meaning to the idea of program translators, too!

Kent, the man from xanth.