Wolfgang Jeltsch
Am Freitag, 10. Juli 2009 05:26 schrieb roconnor@theorem.ca:
I find it amazing that you independently chose to spell colour with a `u'. It makes me feel better about my choice.
I have to admit that it makes me unhappy. :-(
Why do we use English for identifiers? Because English is the language of computer science. What English should we use? It’s tempting to say, we should use the original English, which is British English. But we should ask again what is the language of computer science. And the language of computer science is American English.
I don't buy that. And don't forget India.
To my knowledge, most early developments in computer science had their roots in the US.
Really? Manchester Mark I, EDSAC I, EDSAC II? Alan Turing, David Wheeler, Maurice Wilkes? To mention a random selection of early ones (leaving aside Konrad Zuse and colleagues and various Russian pioneers on account of not speaking English).
One consequence of this is that reserved words of programming languages are typically in American English. PASCAL uses “program”,
The use of "program" rather than "programme" in programming was mandated by the IFIP in what I regard as an attempt to act outwith their remit. I've never accepted it.
not “programme”, and BASIC uses “COLOR”, not “COLOUR”.
I'm not sure I would use BASIC as an authority for any aspect of programming language design. Going back to the early developments aspect, a high proportion of early work in functional programming was done in Britain and elsewhere in Europe (at a time when Europeans typically preferred British spellings), so perhaps one should recognise that in choosing identifiers. But anyway, where's the harm in a bit of variety? If someone who prefers British spellings originates a package, why get het up about it if they use them in identifiers? I have to put up with American spellings all over the place, so a few British spellings might even up the balance a bit. -- Jón Fairbairn (British, but with a tendency to identify myself as European)