i've always given the advice "program in english, comments, variables, function names, everything", and "always use a uk/us keyboard unless you absolutely have to enter localised strings, and even better get someone else to do that"
I've been working with a codebase for a very specific domain where hardly anyone even knew the English terms for the domain-specific things (and some of them probably didn't even exist - highly localized customs etc.). No point in using English then.
I’ve seen before that this is not followed in certain cases, such as the entire development team being in a specific country where some or many team members don’t know English (well enough). As an anecdote, I’ve seen a team in a large multinational company (US origin) in Spain that used function names, variable names, database table names (and column names), log message text and many other things in Spanish. English was only for the language keywords because that’s what the compiler would accept.
The smart projects that are going for L10N will collect all the UI strings into a file or set of files, separate from the code, and indexed so that the app can just switch language and then begin using a new set of localized strings. This also makes for easy translation where you don't need to rebuild the app, just expand the data files that it's using. Is this not the only way to build apps today, or are "localized strings" still being hardcoded??
Draig is built on L10N and code can be passed to/from Welsh <=> Other (eg English) … the keywords are translated back and forth, but comments and identifiers are whatever the coder writes.
I can only speak for Japan, but I suspect China is the same. In Japan, English programming is the norm because all mainstream programming languages are written in English. Keywords, libraries and documentation are in English, so there's not really any getting around the fact that you have to learn to read at least some English. Some Japanese developers do write identifiers in Japanese where languages support it, and documentation / comments are often written in Japanese, of course.
I, personally, think this is a lamentable state of affairs that raises the barrier to entry for programming, especially for children. There are education-oriented Japanese programming languages that try to fill the niche for teaching children, but I think it would be beneficial if there were serious languages with a full ecosystem rather than ones designed to be training wheels before learning English programming languages.
Why not use a pre-processor or something like it to simply translate the keywords etc? I know that there isn’t a 1:1 match between English words and words in other languages, but you should be able to get something close enough.
I actually have done that, but there are still problems. It doesn't really do anything to help somebody who can't read English because things like error messages and libraries are still in English, and it doesn't play nicely with IDE tooling, which is fixable in open-source editors but not proprietary editors. It ends up being a lot of effort for an experience that feels very much second-class.
The first STM32 "bluepill"-based SCSI to SD adaptor I ever used had all its source code in Chinese.
Google Translate did a not terrible job of turning all the comments into English but also mangled the code in exciting new ways, but with a bit of ingenuity to apply the Artificial Intelligence translations, and a bit of bloodymindedness when applying the Analogue Idiocy to hacking it all about with search-and-replace, I got a pretty plausible translation of it.
As someone who's spoken English since 5, I'm perplexed by this question. I'm genuinely unfamiliar with any perceived downsides and I would love to hear more of your thoughts
for (int i = 0; while i < fruitbasket.Count; i++)
fruitbasket[i].Eat();
Even as a low-level programmer, I truly loathe C-style for loops. It takes several seconds to parse them, while the C#-style foreach is instantly grokkable with zero mental overhead. When you're scanning over thousands of lines of codes, the speed and ease of reading constructs like these adds up and makes a huge difference. The desire to apply human-friendly syntax to low-level programming is among the greatest motivating factors for the language I'm working on. All of that being said, I think there is a huge advantage in having code that reads like natural language you understand, rather than having keywords that are foreign and meaningless to you.
Not at all. I'm comparing two different syntaxes that can reliably compile to the same machine code. A syntax that produces non-deterministic results is a completely different matter.
Guess what language the specification is written in (if it exists at all) ?
It's usually natural language, and even then, compilers deviate from the specification all the time, and the specification has bugs.
Formal specifications are a thing, but the science is nowhere mature enough to dictate what compilers do.
> unless it has a bug
Compilers are not magic, the way it follows specifications is up to the interpretation of compiler developers like yours truly. And there are tens of thousands of compiler bugs. There was a notorious LLVM pass that had more bugs than lines of code ;)
I know what you mean, and it was correct a year or more ago. Now, you are wrong.
AI is reliable enough to not mess up this translation now, especially if you configure it right (top p, and temperature parameters).
This abstraction lifting is absolutely happening in front of our eyes now. For the exact same reason the C for loop is less readable.
The different is that you don't yet store the prompts, just the generated code. That difference is not going to last too long. Storing prompts and contexts along with generated code is likely how we are going to be doing software engineering for a few decades before whatever the next leap in technology works out to be.
You could just lock the seed to get "deterministic" behaviour, but you are missing the point of programming languages completely. Programming languages are a set of rules that ~guarantee predictable behaviour down to the bit level. If you were to try to recreate that with LLMs, you run into two problems: one, your LLM is now a programming language where you have to put exact specific inputs in to get the correct outputs, except you don't have a specification for the inputs and you don't know what the correct outputs even look like because you aren't a software engineer. Two, even with a locked seed, the LLM is still going to output different code based on the exact order of letters in your prompt and any change in that will change the output. Compilers can execute a variety of optimizations on your code that change the output, but in the end they are still bound to hard rules and you can learn the rules when you get output that does not match what your expectations were from the input. And if there is a bug in the execution of the rules by the compiler, you can fix it; that is not possible with an LLM.
This talk about replacing software engineering by people who have no idea what software engineering is gets unbelievably tedious. The advent of Javascript did nothing to replace software engineers, it just created an entirely new class of developer. It lowered the barrier to entry and allowed anybody to write inefficient, bloated, buggy, and insecure programs. Our hardware is advanced enough that for many trivial applications there is sufficient overhead for inefficient and bloated programs to exist and be "good enough" (although they are causing untold damage in the real world with security breach after security breach). However, lowering the barrier to entry does not replace the existing engineers. You still need a real software engineer to develop novel applications that use the hardware efficiently. The Duchies of Javascript and Python are simply a new country founded adjacent to, and depending upon, the Software Engineer Kingdom. Now a new duchy is being founded, one that lowers the barrier to entry further to make even more inefficient, even more bloated, even more buggy, and even more insecure programs easier than ever. For some use cases, these programs will be good enough. But they will never replace the use cases that require serious engineering, just as Javascript never did.
> Programming languages are a set of rules that ~guarantee predictable behaviour down to the bit level.
No, that’s your interpretation of what a programming language is, based on nostalgia and wishful thinking.
If you get a programming system that sacrifices these and works better, people are going to use those.
FYI I am a compiler developer who has contributed to about three widely used compilers, I assure you I understand what programming languages and compilers are.
> If you get a programming system that sacrifices these and works better, people are going to use those.
Sure. That's a very large "if", though, one that evaluates to false and will continue evaluating to false for the foreseeable future. I am told over and over that I am being replaced and yet I have not seen one singular example of a real-world application of vibe coding that replaces existing software engineering. For starters, where is the vibe-coded replacement for Clang? For Linux? For IDEs? For browsers? I don't mean a concept of an idea of a browser, of course. To make the claim that the new programming system works better than the old system, it must produce something that is actually superior to what people currently use. LLMs are clearly completely and totally incapable of this. What they are capable of is making inferior software with a lower barrier to entry. Superior software is completely off the table, and it is why we don't see any existing software being replaced at scale, even though existing software absolutely has flaws and room for improvement that a "better programming system" would be able to seize upon if it existed.
That you can confidently assert that I am wrong, while having zero real-world evidence of superior software engineering produced by the new system, is indicative of a certain level of cultish thinking that is overtaking the world. Over and over and over again, people keep making these grand claims promising the world is changed, and yet there is no tangible presence of this in reality. You simply demand belief that it will change, as though LLMs are a new religion.
> Storing prompts and contexts along with generated code is likely how we are going to be doing software engineering for a few decades
You specifically asserted that prompts would be the future of software engineering. If my memory is not mistaken, this was edited later to hedge with "likely" and did not include that when originally written?
We'll have to leave it here then. I am fairly confident you edited the comment after the fact, but I cannot prove it, so further discussion is fruitless.
lol - I had the temerity to raise the "how about a new logo" topic last week and it's going to time time for me to (hopefully) convince the community of the need to let go
I love coding in Raku - and I am sure that Gleam is nice too. But I get the feeling that Raku is underappreciated / dismissed by many due to the perl5 / perl6 history. So my thinking is, when I see a new language showcase an example on their website, presumably a carefully chosen snippet that showcases their language at its best, I like to see how Raku compares to that.
You know the take-aways from the comparison are quite instructive:
- do I need to import the io lib? (shouldn't this just be included)
- do I need a main() in every script? (does this rule out one liners like `> raku -e "say 'hi'"`)
- is `io.println` quite an awkward way to spell `print`?
I am not making the case that these are right or wrong language design decisions, but I do think that they are instructive of the goals of the designers. In the case of raku its "batteries included" and a push for "baby raku" to be as gentle on new coders as eg. Python.
The differences you mentioned are advantageous for Gleam depending on what you want. Like, having to namespace symbols instead of implicitly importing symbols makes it explicit where things come from which is good. Needing main, same thing. But the big differences are that Gleam is both functional, so everything is immutable, and fully typed safe. Completely the opposite of Perl/Haku so comparing these languages makes zero sense. If you don’t need types or functional programming you probably would just never use Gleam.
I think comparing 'printing hello world' programs isn't particularly useful, except that from how you describe it, Raku sounds more like a scripting language, which Gleam is not.
In comparison with Gleam, I would be more interested to see how good Raku is at helping the programmer prevent errors through static analysis, how easy it is to build with concurrency, how much value the language puts into being easy to understand and reason about, and whether it can run on the server as well as compile to JS.
I have no negative predisposition, I don't really care about the history of pearl or whatever, I have looked at Raku before but I find the syntax very foreign, and the fact that it seems to (maybe optionally?) incorporate glyphs that I can't easily type with a keyboard.
I love the butterfly though, so I'd love to get to know the language more.
role Fish { has Str $.name }
class Starfish does Fish { has Str $.favourite-colour; }
class Jellyfish does Fish { has Bool $.jiggly }
sub handle-fish(Fish $fish) {
given $fish {
when Starfish { say .favourite-colour }
when Jellyfish { say .name }
}
}
handle-fish Starfish.new: :name("Lucy"), :favourite-colour("Pink");
I would probably reach for multi-dispatch...
role Fish { has Str $.name }
class Starfish does Fish { has Str $.favourite-colour; }
class Jellyfish does Fish { has Bool $.jiggly }
multi sub handle-fish(Starfish $fish) { say $fish.favourite-colour }
multi sub handle-fish(Jellyfish $fish) { say $fish.name }
handle-fish Starfish.new: :name("Lucy"), :favourite-colour("Pink");
Here's the other Gleam concurrency example in Raku for good measure:
my @promises;
sub MAIN() {
# Run loads of green threads, no problem
for ^200_000 {
spawn-greeter($++);
}
await Promise.allof(@promises);
}
sub spawn-greeter($i) {
@promises.push: start {
say "Hello from $i";
}
}
I made a website in HTMX (https://raku.org) to celebrate that I can use my preferred language on the server side. It’s no frills, generally static and HTMX is just to goose up some of the UX dynamism. It was a very nice experience and I recommend https://htmx.org/examples for the kind of cool things you can do. otoh, I would not build Google Maps with this tool :-)
And most users will have no idea. They just know that it's a super clean, easy to read page that conveys the message you have about Raku.
Yet the biggest benefit is for you; in 3 months or 3 years you'll return to this web site and make some changes, and you'll instantly know what's up. No super complex React / TypeScript / Node app that won't even build.
reply