C++ Modules Might Be Dead-On-Arrival

Re:C++ Modules Might Be Dead-On-Arrival by ckastner on Monday January 28, 2019 @04:49AM (#19016253)

As a non-native English speaker, I understand the desire to name things in my native language (German), but for all but languae francae, naming things in a native language presents an obstacle to sharing these things with others.

Compare итератор and 迭代器, which are complete mysteries to me produced by Google Translate. If my intention were to reach as many people as possible, I'd use "iterator" (which, coincidentally, works for English and my native German).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:C++ Modules Might Be Dead-On-Arrival by johannes1234321 on Monday January 28, 2019 @06:58AM (#19016788)

There are technical terms and there is domain terminology.

If once worked in finance and there is a difference between GAAP accounting and German accounting rules. If my algorithms used English terminology to be consistent with technical terms this would be confusing inneach review. Using German terms (even combined with English "get" or "set", like "getBetriebsertrag") there was beneficial, even though it always confussed new members of the team.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:C++ Modules Might Be Dead-On-Arrival by beaconstudios on Monday January 28, 2019 @07:00AM (#19016807)

funnily enough, the Russian also spells "iterator", just in Cyrillic. But your point stands nonetheless.

[ Parent | on HN ]