"是先有了 Unicode 支持再有了中文、日文编程的需求"?

出自这条回复: https://www.v2ex.com/t/518915#r_6628068

现在觉得也许这种看法的不在少数. 为此, 节选十一年前Python3 选择支持非 ASCII 码标识符的缘由:

Rationale(依据)一节开篇明义, 指出用母语命名标识符对代码清晰度和可维护性的提高.

Python code is written by many people in the world who are not familiar with the English language, or even well-acquainted with the Latin writing system. Such developers often desire to define classes and functions with names in their native languages, rather than having to come up with an (often incorrect) English translation of the concept they want to name. By using identifiers in their native language, code clarity and maintainability of the code among speakers of that language improves.

下面列出了一些质疑和回应. 其中:

People claim that they will not be able to use a library if to do so they have to use characters they cannot type on their keyboards. However, it is the choice of the designer of the library to decide on various constraints for using the library: people may not be able to use the library because they cannot get physical access to the source code (because it is not published), or because licensing prohibits usage, or because the documentation is in a language they cannot understand. A developer wishing to make a library widely available needs to make a number of explicit choices (such as publication, licensing, language of documentation, and language of identifiers). It should always be the choice of the author to make these decisions - not the choice of the language designers.

不用翻译吧

xuanwu

2018-12-23 03:40:24 +08:00

@KasuganoSoras 如果只想切磋可读性(不打算实用中文命名), 不妨新开帖子, 挑一段有代表性的, 我尽量试试(肯定需要对代码本身学习一下, PHP 用的很少. 如有问题还请指点). 之前类似的一帖在: https://www.v2ex.com/t/519903

如果打算实用, 不妨移步 github 深入探讨(清静一些), 个人倾向于先添加中文版的 API(方法 /参数名), 这样至少对用户也可能有用(原英文 API 不变).

xlui

2018-12-23 08:32:43 +08:00

你在原文列了那么多语言，结果给出的引用就只有 Python 而且是在我问了之后才去查的吧。如果是在我问了之后去查的那原文那句话还真的是臆测，如果不是当我没说。

我承认我对 Unicode 标识符的理解不够，Python 支持 Unicode 原来是为了支持母语标识符。但是其他呢，我还是会认为 Unicode 标识符只是语言支持 Unicode 顺带的，除非你甩给我参考链接。

“多数现代编程语言都支持 Unicode 命名的事实，说明了这一需求的切实存在。”

这句话前半部分是事实，但是前后之间却没有必然的因果关系，也就是说前者是后者的充分不必要条件，除非有更多的参考链接来佐证。当然我也不是故意刁难，要你去找参考链接。但是只用一篇链接就否定我的观点，自我胜利，太狡猾了吧。

所以我还和之前的想法一样，如果你只是凭空捏造些论点来和别人争论那跟你讨论真的是浪费时间。作为一个布道者却满嘴可能、极大、是可以预见的，说实话有点烦。