@velartrill@Mek101 standardisation is necessary for interoperability. will you write duplicate standard library aliases for each of the thousands of global languages? and what use are those if users are still barred from every other library or utility?in science, maths, engineering, and languages more generally, we have de-facto standards. artificially "fair" systems (esperanto or whatever) are introduced too late for widespread adoption, and a minority language has no hope of replacing majority one without significant population shiftand nobody writes programs in standard english anyways; terminology like heap/new/print/pipe/void/state/whatever (leave aside jumbles like ipc/malloc) are all jargon that an english speaker has to learn toofurthermore unicode itself is both a security hazard (misleading / invisible symbols and complicated parsing) and a broken implementation for even major languages (e.g. han unification). it's not sufficient to support arbitrary inputs, and there's no better alternative (de-facto standardisation againam here also personally concerned about language barriers in programming (and engineering / science more generally), having seen it be a problem for friends. but the most effective route to addressing that problem is through multilingual documentation, not unicode variable names
@Mek101 making capitalization part of a language syntax. partly it's just spiteful because it enforces one person's preferred style on everyone who has to use their thing, but also it's asciicentric as hell -- what happens when chinese programmers want to start a struct name with 我? there's no such thing as "case" (majuscule/minuscule) in hanzi/kanji, or kana, or devanagari (or any brahmic script for that matter), or arabic, or hebrew, or thaana, or etc. in fact only a small number of mostly greek-derived scripts have this concept. georgian does have capital letters but they are rarely used and only for very specific purposes; idk if georgian keyboard layouts even support themand to top it all off, enforcing this convention requires either enforcing ASCII encoding or including a massive amount of data (like, probably a megabyte or so) about the unicode code space (because you can't trivially map a given unicode character to "uppercase" or "lowercase" even where such case distinctions make sense), for no purpose other than creating an artificial restriction.it's bad on so many levels, especially when uppercase/lowercase doesn't even add some kind of useful semantics and it's just spiteful enforcement of the author's favorite coding style
@velartrill Enforcing a standized coding style seems like a good thing to me, since it makes jumping on a existing project easier on the eyes.As for languages... I kinda prefer to keep them english only? It's a matter of taste, but I'm the first to frown upon on a piece of code that mixes english and italian, expecially if it's inconsistent at it.