in 650672 20110125 115033 Bryan <bryan.oak...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Jan 25, 2:02=A0am, Bob Martin <bob.mar...@excite.com> wrote: >> in 650595 20110124 192332 Bryan <bryan.oak...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Jan 24, 12:05=3DA0pm, rantingrick <rantingr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Jan 24, 12:00=3DA0pm, Bryan <bryan.oak...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > Accessibility, like internationalization, is something few programme= >rs >> >> > spend much time thinking about. >> >> >> Thats another uninformed statement by you we can add to the mountains >> >> of useless cruft you have offered so far. Unicode IS >> >> internationalization and Guido thought it was SO important that >> >> Python3000 auto converts all strings to Unicode strings. Obviously he >> >> is moving us toward full Unicode only in the future (AS SHOULD ALL >> >> IMPLEMENTATIONS!). We need one and only one obvious way to do it. And >> >> Unicode is that way. >> >> >Ok, great. You've identified one programmer who thinks about >> >internationalization. Not much of a compelling argument there. >> >> >However, I think you missed my point. My point wasn't that people like >> >Guido don't think of these topics. It's that the people in the >> >trenches who use these tools don't think about these topics. How many >> >of your co-workers actively think about internationalization and >> >accessibility? I'm guessing none, but maybe you're lucking and work in >> >a particularly enlightened team. I've perhaps worked closely with a >> >few hundred programmers in my career, and very few of them thought of >> >these subjects. In my experience it's just not something the >> >programmer in the trenches thinks about. That is the point I was >> >trying to make. >> >> Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. =A0I spent my working life a= >s a programmer >> with a very large multi-national IT company and all software had to be fu= >lly >> "internationalized" (otherwise known as NLS) or it didn't get used. =A0 >> Do you think the whole world speaks US English? > >No, absolutely not. I don't see how you go from "I don't think all >developers think about i18n" to "I think everyone speaks english".
I said "US English", not just English, and you didn't say "I don't think all developers think about i18n", you said "I'm guessing none". Big difference. I think your attitude to this is US-only. > >Most very large companies think about this a lot. Most hugely >successful software is probably internationalized. Together those two >groups make up a tiny fraction of all software. Think about all the >free software you use -- how much of it is internationalized and >optimized for accessibility? I bet not much. I wish I could say more >than half of all software is internationalized but I just don't >believe that to be true based on my own personal observation. "I bet not much" - there you go again ;-) You'll find that nearly all software used in Europe (and most other parts) is internationalized or it wouldn't stand a chance. > >I definitely agree that many companies, both large and small, do the >right thing here. From my experience though, many !=3D most. I hope I'm >wrong though, because that means the we're all headed in the right >direction. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
