On May 15, 10:18 am, René Fleschenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Carsten Haese schrieb: > > > Allowing people to use identifiers in their native language would > > definitely be an advantage for people from such cultures. That's the use > > case for this PEP. It's easy for Euro-centric people to say "just suck > > it up and use ASCII", but the same people would probably starve to death > > if they were suddenly teleported from Somewhere In Europe to rural China > > which is so unimaginably different from what they know that it might > > just as well be a different planet. "Learn English and use ASCII" is not > > generally feasible advice in such cultures. > > This is a very weak argument, IMHO. How do you want to use Python > without learning at least enough English to grasp a somewhat decent > understanding of the standard library? Let's face it: To do any "real" > programming, you need to know at least some English today, and I don't > see that changing anytime soon. And it is definitely not going to be > changed by allowing non-ASCII identifiers. snip
Another way of framing this discussion could be, "should Python continue to maintain a barrier to it's use by non-English speakers if it is not necessary?" Virtually every guide to programming style I have ever read stresses the importance of variable naming. For example, the Wikipedia article "programming style" mentions variable naming right after layout (indentation, etc) in importance: "Appropriate choices for variable names are seen as the keystone for good style. Poorly-named variables make code harder to read and understand" Even when English-as-non-native-language speakers can understand English words, the level and speed of compression is often far below that of their native language. Denying the ability to use native language identifiers puts these people at a significant disadvantage compared to English speakers with regard to reading (their own!) code. And the justification for this is the hypothetical case that someone who doesn't understand that language *might* *someday* have to read it. Besides the large number of programs that will never be public (far larger than most of the worriers think is my guess), even in public programs this is not necessarily a disaster. A public application written in "Chinese Python" might work perfectly and be completely usable by me, even if it is difficult for me to understand. And why should my difficulty count for more than a Chinese person's difficultly in understanding my "English Python" application? That Python keywords are English is unimportant -- they are a small finite set that can be memorized. Identifiers are a large unbounded set that can't be. That the standard library code and documentation is in English is irrelevant. One shouldn't need to read the standard library code to use it. (That one sometimes has to is a Python flaw that should be fixed -- not bandaided by requiring Python programmers to know English). There is no need to understand english to use the standard library. Documentation has and will (as Python becomes more popular) be translated into native languages. Here is Python standard library documentation in Japanese: http://www.python.jp/doc/release/lib/ While encouraging English in shared/public code is fine, trying by enforce it by continuing to enforce ascii-only identifiers smacks to me of a "whites only country club" mentality. Making Python more accessible to the world (the vast majority of whom do not speak English) can only advance Python. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
