Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!stc!rmj
From: rmj@tcom.stc.co.uk (Rhodri James)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Internationalisation
Message-ID: <1911@islay.tcom.stc.co.uk>
Date: 29 Aug 90 18:46:47 GMT
References: <24141@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> <134@blekko.UUCP> <1881@jura.tcom.stc.co.uk> <3603@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Reply-To: rmj@htc1.UUCP (Rhodri James)
Organization: STC Telecomms, Harlow Technical Centre, Harlow
Lines: 61

In article <3603@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes about me writing about him writing:
>> }For why?  Internationalisation, _that's_ for why.
>
>> I cringe when I see this (unwords like "internationalisation", I mean).
>
>One uses language for the purpose of communication.

My point exactly. "Internationalisation" communicated absolutely nothing
to me for several minutes, even given the example. Me, I'd prefer to
call it "language switching" or something a tad more obvious like that,
but the potential confusion *that* could cause is enormous. So I guess
I'll have to lump it.

>In order to effect that purpose, one uses words that other people know
>and use, not the words one happens to like.

True. See above. Although a counterexample has just sprung to mind -
"program".

>Like it or not,
>"internationalise" and its derivatives are *words* in 1990s computing
>jargon.

I had never seen or heard the word prior to this thread. Whether this
means I am not up on the jargon, or the jargon isn't nearly as
international as it would like to think, I don't know.

>(By the way, there is no such word as "unword".  If
>there were such a term, it would be "nonword".  "dictcheck -pedantic")

Oh good, my attempt to get into this style of linguistic evolution
worked. :-)

>> Also I fail to see your point. Surely such #ifdef switching
>> as above is more efficient, simpler to maintain and more legible than
>> the scrabbling about with resource files you prefer?
>
>So now Cn James reads minds and knows what I prefer.  Wonderful just.

Cn? Oh, Citizen. Sorry, Pr O'Keefe.
(Both the above lines are ad hominem and ought to be ignored, but are
much more fun this way).

>[Sundry bits of info and arguments that are actually useful]

OK. You've convinced me. For programs requiring multi-linguistic output
and input of medium or greater complexity (or any requiring run-time
switching), the resource file approach wins. Personally, it'll still
take me a long time to give up #ifdeffing, as I know I can maintain that
and I have an aversion to complicating preprocessing (it just doesn't
feel right), but that's just me.

Mind you, arguing that "this is the way System V does it, so get used to
it" nearly lost you my sympathy. How Unix of any sort has become the
dominant operating system is beyond me, it's not as if it's actually
very good or anything :-\
-- 
* Windsinger                 * "Nothing is forgotten..."
* rmj@islay.tcom.stc.co.uk   *                    Mike Whitaker
*     or (occasionally)      * "...except sometimes the words"
* rmj10@phx.cam.ac.uk        *                    Phil Allcock