Design Questions about static factory classes
in [Java Programming]
|
From: Arne Vajhøj on 22 May 2010 09:26 On 21-05-2010 19:54, Arne Vajh�j wrote: > On 21-05-2010 16:28, Tom Anderson wrote: >> On Fri, 21 May 2010, Rhino wrote: >>> First, I hope we can all agree that, in an ideal world, every class >>> which can produce text output - even if no text is produced per se, >>> most classed would be capable of producing error messages for >>> Exceptions - should be written so that it can produce that output in >>> the languages of the users of those classes. >> >> I strongly disagree. Text for the consumption of end-users should be >> localised; text for the consumption of programmers and sysops should not >> be. I think the advantages of having a common language for these things >> outweight the disadvantages of most people not having them in their >> first language. It's like air traffic control - it's vital for clear >> communication that i can say "i'm getting the NoMoreJam error", and not >> draw a complete blank with French acquaintances who've only ever seen >> NYAPlusDeConfiture and Americans familiar with NoMoreJelly. Having a >> single language makes googling with error messages and so on a lot more >> productive, too - and that's a benefit to the speakers of minor >> languages, who have access to squillions of English search results. > > I would expect developers, testers and operators to understand > English too, but unfortunately it is not uncommon for customers > to require internationalization for operations. In Europe > both Germany and France often require that. Which can be a bit problematic when having a global team that needs to fix bugs related to a GUI in German or French. Arne
From: Lew on 22 May 2010 11:11 Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> And my guess is that Tom [sic] meant US English. Tom Anderson wrote: > Certainly not! en_GB is the canonical form, and en_US is merely a > popular but subordinate deviation. It has ever amazed me how well the Brits speak English. Awesome! -- Lew
From: Mike Schilling on 22 May 2010 12:47 Lew wrote: > Arne Vajh�j wrote: >>> And my guess is that Tom [sic] meant US English. > > Tom Anderson wrote: >> Certainly not! en_GB is the canonical form, and en_US is merely a >> popular but subordinate deviation. > > It has ever amazed me how well the Brits speak English. Awesome! Some of them even write it well, though rarely as well as the Irish.
From: Tom Anderson on 22 May 2010 12:51 On Sat, 22 May 2010, Mike Schilling wrote: > Lew wrote: >> Arne Vajh?j wrote: >>>> And my guess is that Tom [sic] meant US English. >> >> Tom Anderson wrote: >>> Certainly not! en_GB is the canonical form, and en_US is merely a >>> popular but subordinate deviation. >> >> It has ever amazed me how well the Brits speak English. Awesome! > > Some of them even write it well, though rarely as well as the Irish. And of course, it's the Scandinavians who are the real masters of it. tom -- The world belongs to the mathematics and engineering. The world is as it is. -- Luis Filipe Silva vs Babelfish
From: Mike Schilling on 22 May 2010 13:05
Tom Anderson wrote: > On Sat, 22 May 2010, Mike Schilling wrote: > >> Lew wrote: >>> Arne Vajh?j wrote: >>>>> And my guess is that Tom [sic] meant US English. >>> >>> Tom Anderson wrote: >>>> Certainly not! en_GB is the canonical form, and en_US is merely a >>>> popular but subordinate deviation. >>> >>> It has ever amazed me how well the Brits speak English. Awesome! >> >> Some of them even write it well, though rarely as well as the Irish. > > And of course, it's the Scandinavians who are the real masters of it. I was thinking of Shaw, Wilde, Joyce, Synge, and Yeats. |