On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 16:15, Monique Y. Herman wrote: > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 at 19:01 GMT, Ron Johnson penned: > > On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 12:29, Monique Y. Herman wrote: > >> You're right; the anglo-centric nature of most programming languages > >> is distressing. It would be fun to code in a language based on a > >> totally > > > > Distressing???????? What an over-reaction. > > > > Guess what? When French/German/Chinese/Spanish/Portuguese/Japanese > > Computer Scientists decide to write a programming language in their > > own native language, there will be programming languages in those > > languages. But then, why did Niklaus Wirth use English key words, > > even though he is Swiss/German? > > > > Distressing was the wrong word. I personally find variety interesting, > and using a language with a different natural-language origin would be > entertaining. Then again, I'm pretty good with languages, so I might be > in the minority there.
Can't disagree with you there. Have you tried functional lan- guages like Haskell? They are pretty odd to programmers with procedural and OO paradigms. Then again, if people who speak different languages all had different programming "though processes", then Linux, KDE & Gnome wouldn't exist. Remember, Open Standards are a Good Thing, and English is about as open as you can get. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jefferson, LA USA YODA: Code! Yes. A programmer's strength flows from code maintainability. But beware of Perl. Terse syntax... more than one way to do it...default variables. The dark side of code maintainability are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you when code you write. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
