Why internationalization of commands is a very bad idea

I was thinking that this would just be about parsing command output, or searching for error messages online (i.e. copy and paste an error message into Google) but this is beyond stupid.

Re: Why internationalization of commands is a very bad idea

#5

Post by officialchicken » Wed, Jul 15, 2015, 5:13 PM UTC

No, it's not a bad idea, and these 4 lines of bash script contain no solid reasoning, argument, or business logic as to why helping the other 80% of the world's population is a very bad idea.

Doing internationalization without support libraries is a very bad idea, as this sample code helps illustrate.

Re: Why internationalization of commands is a very bad idea

#6

Post by astrodust » Wed, Jul 15, 2015, 5:17 PM UTC

officialchicken wrote: post #5

No, it's not a bad idea, and these 4 lines of bash script contain no solid reasoning, argument, or business logic as to why helping the other 80% of the world's population is a very bad idea. Doing internationalization without support libraries is a very bad idea, as this sample code helps illustrate.

It's a terrible idea unless you can force the command to accept arguments in a specific language. Do you expect someone to iterate all the possible variants of "yes"?

Re: Why internationalization of commands is a very bad idea

#7

Post by officialchicken » Wed, Jul 15, 2015, 5:18 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #6

officialchicken wrote: post #5

No, it's not a bad idea, and these 4 lines of bash script contain no solid reasoning, argument, or business logic as to why helping the other 80% of the world's population is a very bad idea. Doing internationalization without support libraries is a very bad idea, as this sample code helps illustrate.

It's a terrible idea unless you can force the command to accept arguments in a specific language. Do you expect someone to iterate all the possible variants of "yes"?

With the proper support libraries, Da/Yes/Ha/Ja/etc/etc/etc it's trivial.

Re: Why internationalization of commands is a very bad idea

#8

Post by vbnmvbnmvbnm » Wed, Jul 15, 2015, 5:18 PM UTC

So, interpreting a wide variety of character arrays as corresponding boolean values, is a bad idea?

Re: Why internationalization of commands is a very bad idea

#9

Post by mikeash » Wed, Jul 15, 2015, 5:19 PM UTC

officialchicken wrote: post #5

No, it's not a bad idea, and these 4 lines of bash script contain no solid reasoning, argument, or business logic as to why helping the other 80% of the world's population is a very bad idea. Doing internationalization without support libraries is a very bad idea, as this sample code helps illustrate.

I'm pretty sure that's not bash.

In any case, the script makes a cogent and concise argument. That argument is that command line options are not just a human interface, but also a machine interface, and localization of machine interfaces leads to pain and catastrophe.

You certainly don't have to agree with that argument, but it's there.

Re: Why internationalization of commands is a very bad idea

#10

Post by officialchicken » Wed, Jul 15, 2015, 5:24 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #9

officialchicken wrote: post #5

No, it's not a bad idea, and these 4 lines of bash script contain no solid reasoning, argument, or business logic as to why helping the other 80% of the world's population is a very bad idea. Doing internationalization without support libraries is a very bad idea, as this sample code helps illustrate.

I'm pretty sure that's not bash. In any case, the script makes a cogent and concise argument. That argument is that command line options are not just a human interface, but also a machine interface, and localization of machine interfaces leads to pain and catastrophe. You certainly don't have to agree with that argument, but it's there.

Sure, any naive implementation will lead to pain and catastrophe. But I don't buy that this is a cogent and concise argument to NOT do it.