On 08/04/16 01:04, lasselangwadtchristensen@gmail.com wrote:> Den torsdag den 7. april 2016 kl. 23.40.32 UTC+2 skrev Hans-Bernhard Br�ker: >> Am 07.04.2016 um 16:04 schrieb Ed Prochak: >> >>> I have less of a problem with a program written with German >>> names for example, because it does not change the syntax of >>> the program. >> >> Good thing you missed one of Microsoft's silliest decisions ever, then, >> which was what they did with WordBasic (i.e. before Office 97). >> >> They actually thought it would be a clever idea to translate the entire >> language(!): keywords, operators, standard library functions, the whole >> thing. So if you had a document created in a US version and printed out >> the macro source, then repeated that step in a German version of Word, >> the printout would be totally different ... only commented-out code >> would still look the same, because it didn't undergo auto-translation. > > I remember being hearing stories about that. > > Did code written in one language run on Word in a different language? >I believe that the storage format is tokenised, and the editor translates back and forth between token number and local language keywords, so that code can work on different systems. But I don't know for sure - my experience with MS Office is very minimal (the last version I had on my own systems was Word for Windows 2, on Win 3.11. I use LaTeX when I can, LibreOffice otherwise). Excel does the same thing - function names are different in different languages, and are a real pain to deal with. You can't copy and paste easily, you can't look at examples on a web page in a different language and expect them to work. You can't even get the idiotic thing to import or export text formats if the file's idea of decimal comma vs. decimal point differs from your Window's setup. It might be workable for people who work solely in a single non-English language and don't understand English, but it is annoying for mixed language usage. MS really should look at LibreOffice to learn how office software should work.
Decimal Point vs. Decimal Comma
Started by ●April 2, 2016
Reply by ●April 8, 20162016-04-08
Reply by ●April 8, 20162016-04-08
Am Wed, 06 Apr 2016 01:18:42 +0300 schrieb Dimiter_Popoff:> So programming is done using English (or Galactic Standard once we are > there), period. If someone can't learn English well enough to do > programming, read/write datasheets etc. he is in the wrong line of work > anyway.This is a pompous "my world the only one I can imagine" point of view, and there are of course other pompous people in other parts of the world which have very similar views (replace English with their preferred lingua franca). A number of cheap Chinese chips, which are relevant to embedded control now, are designed in China, have only Chinese datasheets, and the people who sell them see no need to translate them into English; they can't easily reach customers outside China, and they make good money. Why should a programmer who wants to program these chips (and therefore is fluent in Chinese, because otherwise, he can't program them, or even get them) need to learn English, which is pretty hard for them, just as it is hard for us to learn Chinese? So they are pompous, and say, "we program in Chinese, that's a big enough subset of the world". -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
Reply by ●April 8, 20162016-04-08
On 09.4.2016 г. 02:11, Bernd Paysan wrote:> Am Wed, 06 Apr 2016 01:18:42 +0300 schrieb Dimiter_Popoff: > >> So programming is done using English (or Galactic Standard once we are >> there), period. If someone can't learn English well enough to do >> programming, read/write datasheets etc. he is in the wrong line of work >> anyway. > > This is a pompous "my world the only one I can imagine" point of view, > and there are of course other pompous people in other parts of the world > which have very similar views (replace English with their preferred > lingua franca). A number of cheap Chinese chips, which are relevant to > embedded control now, are designed in China, have only Chinese datasheets, > and the people who sell them see no need to translate them into English; > they can't easily reach customers outside China, and they make good > money. Why should a programmer who wants to program these chips (and > therefore is fluent in Chinese, because otherwise, he can't program them, > or even get them) need to learn English, which is pretty hard for them, > just as it is hard for us to learn Chinese? > > So they are pompous, and say, "we program in Chinese, that's a big enough > subset of the world". >Well this is a valid way of seeing things of course but in my view learning English is the way forward for humanity, until it becomes (evolves into) Galactic Standard or whatever we call it then (I suppose the name Asimov gave it will make its way to real world use). The vast majority of the knowledge humans have is in English; the simplest way to make this universally available is not by translating it to everyone's language but by people learning English. It has become what it is for a good reason. In the short run people who do not speak it may have the need to program something using some hieroglyph based language or whatever but asking the rest of the world to adapt to that and provide them with tools rather than with some English schoolbook is impractical and counterproductive. Mind you, I have seen stuff you probably have not. Back in the 80-s in the Soviet block I got a databook of a Russian clone of the 8080. Everything was in Cyrillic, mnemonics, everything - translated so no trace of the English original had remained. I bought the book at a bookshop just for the huge laugh it inspired, not just in me. A huge effort put in by people who have been competent and could have done something really useful instead. Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff, TGI http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/
Reply by ●April 9, 20162016-04-09
On 4/8/2016 3:50 AM, David Brown wrote:> On 08/04/16 01:04, lasselangwadtchristensen@gmail.com wrote: >> Den torsdag den 7. april 2016 kl. 23.40.32 UTC+2 skrev Hans-Bernhard Br�ker: >>> Am 07.04.2016 um 16:04 schrieb Ed Prochak: >>> >>>> I have less of a problem with a program written with German >>>> names for example, because it does not change the syntax of >>>> the program. >>> >>> Good thing you missed one of Microsoft's silliest decisions ever, then, >>> which was what they did with WordBasic (i.e. before Office 97). >>> >>> They actually thought it would be a clever idea to translate the entire >>> language(!): keywords, operators, standard library functions, the whole >>> thing. So if you had a document created in a US version and printed out >>> the macro source, then repeated that step in a German version of Word, >>> the printout would be totally different ... only commented-out code >>> would still look the same, because it didn't undergo auto-translation. >> >> I remember being hearing stories about that. >> >> Did code written in one language run on Word in a different language? >> > > I believe that the storage format is tokenised, and the editor > translates back and forth between token number and local language > keywords, so that code can work on different systems. But I don't know > for sure - my experience with MS Office is very minimal (the last > version I had on my own systems was Word for Windows 2, on Win 3.11. I > use LaTeX when I can, LibreOffice otherwise). > > Excel does the same thing - function names are different in different > languages, and are a real pain to deal with. You can't copy and paste > easily, you can't look at examples on a web page in a different language > and expect them to work. You can't even get the idiotic thing to import > or export text formats if the file's idea of decimal comma vs. decimal > point differs from your Window's setup. It might be workable for people > who work solely in a single non-English language and don't understand > English, but it is annoying for mixed language usage. MS really should > look at LibreOffice to learn how office software should work.Excel does some things right. I believe they have supported an engineering notation display format for some time now while in LibreOffice it is an add on that is hard to implement. I finally got it working in a spread sheet and copy that to any new spread sheet I want to use Eng Notation in. Eng Notation really should be a documented part of the LO display formats. Watch, this will have been fixed since I did this work a few years ago. -- Rick
Reply by ●April 9, 20162016-04-09
On 09/04/16 07:01, rickman wrote:> On 4/8/2016 3:50 AM, David Brown wrote: >> On 08/04/16 01:04, lasselangwadtchristensen@gmail.com wrote: >>> Den torsdag den 7. april 2016 kl. 23.40.32 UTC+2 skrev Hans-Bernhard >>> Br�ker: >>>> Am 07.04.2016 um 16:04 schrieb Ed Prochak: >>>> >>>>> I have less of a problem with a program written with German >>>>> names for example, because it does not change the syntax of >>>>> the program. >>>> >>>> Good thing you missed one of Microsoft's silliest decisions ever, then, >>>> which was what they did with WordBasic (i.e. before Office 97). >>>> >>>> They actually thought it would be a clever idea to translate the entire >>>> language(!): keywords, operators, standard library functions, the whole >>>> thing. So if you had a document created in a US version and printed >>>> out >>>> the macro source, then repeated that step in a German version of Word, >>>> the printout would be totally different ... only commented-out code >>>> would still look the same, because it didn't undergo auto-translation. >>> >>> I remember being hearing stories about that. >>> >>> Did code written in one language run on Word in a different language? >>> >> >> I believe that the storage format is tokenised, and the editor >> translates back and forth between token number and local language >> keywords, so that code can work on different systems. But I don't know >> for sure - my experience with MS Office is very minimal (the last >> version I had on my own systems was Word for Windows 2, on Win 3.11. I >> use LaTeX when I can, LibreOffice otherwise). >> >> Excel does the same thing - function names are different in different >> languages, and are a real pain to deal with. You can't copy and paste >> easily, you can't look at examples on a web page in a different language >> and expect them to work. You can't even get the idiotic thing to import >> or export text formats if the file's idea of decimal comma vs. decimal >> point differs from your Window's setup. It might be workable for people >> who work solely in a single non-English language and don't understand >> English, but it is annoying for mixed language usage. MS really should >> look at LibreOffice to learn how office software should work. > > Excel does some things right. I believe they have supported an > engineering notation display format for some time now while in > LibreOffice it is an add on that is hard to implement. I finally got it > working in a spread sheet and copy that to any new spread sheet I want > to use Eng Notation in. Eng Notation really should be a documented part > of the LO display formats. Watch, this will have been fixed since I did > this work a few years ago. >There are certainly a few things that Excel (and Word) do better than LibreOffice - LO is far from perfect. Excel is better at handling very large spreadsheets, for example. But there are more points where LO wins, as far as I am concerned. There are small points, such as when drawing graphs in Excel, if there are data points that are N/A (like division by 0), Excel puts these points as 0 - LO skips the points entirely. There are visual and ease-of-use points - MS Office has that hideous ribbon and so much clutter that you need a huge screen if you want to actually see any of the text you are writing. Then there are killer features - LO has excellent support for generating pdf files efficiently and with tables of contexts, clickable links, etc. And with LO, you can work with big documents without fearing that your file sizes will grow absurdly until one day your office program will decide it's time the document got corrupted beyond recognition. Excel can't work sensibly with text imports that don't match exactly the format set on your Windows - LO can cope with anything. And of course, MS Office is restricted to Windows (with some incompatible versions for Macs) - LO runs on Linux as well. We use both suites at my work, with the majority using LO. But IT support and help for office programs is dominated by fixing issues people have with MS Office - LO simply works as it is supposed to do.
Reply by ●April 9, 20162016-04-09
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 8:19:19 PM UTC-4, dp wrote:> On 09.4.2016 г. 02:11, Bernd Paysan wrote: > > Am Wed, 06 Apr 2016 01:18:42 +0300 schrieb Dimiter_Popoff: > > > >> So programming is done using English > >> (or Galactic Standard once we are > >> there), period. If someone can't > >> learn English well enough to do > >> programming, read/write datasheets > >> etc. he is in the wrong line of work > >> anyway. > > > > This is a pompous "my world the only > > one I can imagine" point of view, > > and there are of course other pompous > > people in other parts of the world > > which have very similar views (replace > > English with their preferred > > lingua franca). A number of cheap > > Chinese chips, which are relevant to > > embedded control now, are designed > > in China, have only Chinese datasheets, > > and the people who sell them see > > no need to translate them into English; > > they can't easily reach customers outside > > China, and they make good > > money. Why should a programmer > > who wants to program these chips (and > > therefore is fluent in Chinese, because > > otherwise, he can't program them, > > or even get them) need to learn English, > > which is pretty hard for them, > > just as it is hard for us to learn Chinese? > > > > So they are pompous, and say, "we > > program in Chinese, that's a big enough > > subset of the world". > > > > Well this is a valid way of seeing things > of course but in my view > learning English is the way forward for humanity, > until it becomes > (evolves into) Galactic Standard or whatever > we call it then (I suppose > the name Asimov gave it will make its way > to real world use). > > The vast majority of the knowledge humans have > is in English; the > simplest way to make this universally available > is not by translating > it to everyone's language but by people > learning English. It has > become what it is for a good reason.Sorry, I am a native English speaker but I feel the need to challenge this "fact". In Physics, the vast majority of knowledge was in German, at least until relatively recently. The fact that the primary language of science can change in a single generation should give pause to the claim that English should be the primary language. And therefore must be the only language. Pretty short sighted view, I say.> > In the short run people who do not speak it > may have the need to > program something using some hieroglyph > based language or whatever but > asking the rest of the world to adapt to > that and provide them with > tools rather than with some English > schoolbook is impractical and > counterproductive.A common language would be great. Do you happen to know JCL? (Definitely NOT English!) In the science and technology fields we are part way there when we use mathematics. But until we have one common language, well I actually am sad that I am not multilingual.> > Mind you, I have seen stuff you > probably have not. Back in the 80-s > in the Soviet block I got a databook > of a Russian clone of the 8080. > Everything was in Cyrillic, mnemonics, > everything - translated so no > trace of the English original had remained. > I bought the book at a bookshop just > for the huge laugh it inspired, > not just in me. A huge effort put > in by people who have been competent > and could have done something really > useful instead. > > Dimiter >I would differ. It made sense to them to clone that chip. So is what AMD did also wasted so that they "could have done something really useful instead"? ed
Reply by ●April 9, 20162016-04-09
On 10.4.2016 г. 01:04, Ed Prochak wrote:> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 8:19:19 PM UTC-4, dp wrote: >> On 09.4.2016 г. 02:11, Bernd Paysan wrote: >>> Am Wed, 06 Apr 2016 01:18:42 +0300 schrieb Dimiter_Popoff: >>> >>>> So programming is done using English >>>> (or Galactic Standard once we are >>>> there), period. If someone can't >>>> learn English well enough to do >>>> programming, read/write datasheets >>>> etc. he is in the wrong line of work >>>> anyway. >>> >>> This is a pompous "my world the only >>> one I can imagine" point of view, >>> and there are of course other pompous >>> people in other parts of the world >>> which have very similar views (replace >>> English with their preferred >>> lingua franca). A number of cheap >>> Chinese chips, which are relevant to >>> embedded control now, are designed >>> in China, have only Chinese datasheets, >>> and the people who sell them see >>> no need to translate them into English; >>> they can't easily reach customers outside >>> China, and they make good >>> money. Why should a programmer >>> who wants to program these chips (and >>> therefore is fluent in Chinese, because >>> otherwise, he can't program them, >>> or even get them) need to learn English, >>> which is pretty hard for them, >>> just as it is hard for us to learn Chinese? >>> >>> So they are pompous, and say, "we >>> program in Chinese, that's a big enough >>> subset of the world". >>> >> >> Well this is a valid way of seeing things >> of course but in my view >> learning English is the way forward for humanity, >> until it becomes >> (evolves into) Galactic Standard or whatever >> we call it then (I suppose >> the name Asimov gave it will make its way >> to real world use). >> >> The vast majority of the knowledge humans have >> is in English; the >> simplest way to make this universally available >> is not by translating >> it to everyone's language but by people >> learning English. It has >> become what it is for a good reason. > > Sorry, I am a native English speaker but I feel > the need to challenge this "fact". In Physics, > the vast majority of knowledge was in German, > at least until relatively recently.I am not so sure you have a fact here but even if you did it is "was" vs. "is".> The fact that > the primary language of science can change in a > single generation should give pause to the claim > that English should be the primary language. > And therefore must be the only language.English *is* the primary language, like it or not. Then it is not just the scientific world which uses it universally; e.g. in literature it is also unmatched in terms of quality*quantity. And in electronics and computer design/programming it just is the only language.> > Pretty short sighted view, I say.I don't think either of us will live to see this proven.> >> >> In the short run people who do not speak it >> may have the need to >> program something using some hieroglyph >> based language or whatever but >> asking the rest of the world to adapt to >> that and provide them with >> tools rather than with some English >> schoolbook is impractical and >> counterproductive. > > > A common language would be great. Do you happen > to know JCL? (Definitely NOT English!) > In the science and technology fields we are > part way there when we use mathematics. > But until we have one common language, > well I actually am sad that I am > not multilingual.I am not that multilingual either - I speak Bulgarian (native), English, German and Russian only, the Latin part is a pretty big hole in my education. But I can't say I have much if any use of either of the non-English languages I know in my programming.> >> >> Mind you, I have seen stuff you >> probably have not. Back in the 80-s >> in the Soviet block I got a databook >> of a Russian clone of the 8080. >> Everything was in Cyrillic, mnemonics, >> everything - translated so no >> trace of the English original had remained. >> I bought the book at a bookshop just >> for the huge laugh it inspired, >> not just in me. A huge effort put >> in by people who have been competent >> and could have done something really >> useful instead. >> >> Dimiter >> > > I would differ. It made sense to them to > clone that chip. So is what AMD did also > wasted so that they > "could have done something really > useful instead"?Well it was laughable all the way. I was NOT referring to the fact they cloned something (not the brightest of ideas but is done all the time by many people). I was referring to the part that they did completely translate/reinvent the signal names, opcode mnemonics etc. using horrible Cyrillic abbreviations and stuff, completely useless apart from giving me a good laugh. Whether you like the fact or not it was a perfect example of my point that it is much easier to learn a language than to translate a document written in it above a certain size of that document - and this threshold size is not that great at all. Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff, TGI http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/
Reply by ●April 11, 20162016-04-11
> And using a domain specific language may be the way to go in that case. > There is a reason FORTRAN is still around. And there are other languages > even better (MATLAB?).HAL/s?
Reply by ●April 11, 20162016-04-11
> Well this is a valid way of seeing things of course but in my view > learning English is the way forward for humanity, until it becomes > (evolves into) Galactic Standard or whatever we call it then (I suppose > the name Asimov gave it will make its way to real world use).That's kind of a _chauvanistic_ _weltanschauung_! ;)
Reply by ●April 11, 20162016-04-11
On 11.4.2016 г. 21:52, mac wrote:>> Well this is a valid way of seeing things of course but in my view >> learning English is the way forward for humanity, until it becomes >> (evolves into) Galactic Standard or whatever we call it then (I suppose >> the name Asimov gave it will make its way to real world use). > > That's kind of a _chauvanistic_ _weltanschauung_! ;) >Hah, well, it may sound as such but it can hardly be that :). My first language is not English, in fact I have never set foot in an English speaking country. I am of Bulgarian and German descent (my gran was German), so "chauvinistic" can't really be attributed to me in this context (nor in any context, I am just not the type). I am just being practical. Dimiter
