You should have answered in the new topic...
I don't think so. I don't have nothing against this if somebody want to do it, so I can't complain on new topic. I wouldn't complain if smb wanted to create refrigerator in AHK on its separate thread. But I complain here, as this topic is about something else, witch IMO should NOT include such things.
Microsoft has made the error to translate VBA keywords to French (and some other major languages), but it was more trouble than help, and they came back from this idea.
Ah... Frenchmen... they are so sorry french language isn't number one like it was once in old times (at least when politics was in question). But translating VB to french, that is oh so funny.
Note that you can have base understanding of a language, enough for general understanding, but can miss some subtleties. Hey, I have to read carefully (and often!) to understand the scope rules of functions...
Of course. I also sometimes have hard times understanding something. But that is MY problem. I read and I read again and read again, and if nothing help I come to the forum and ask smb to explain me.
But to insist everybody adapt to YOU instead of YOU adapting to community is uber selfish.
I also realised selfish behavior of many members of this community: scripts are badly documented (its functionality) often it requires from you too take great deal of investigation just to be able to see what it does. There are tones of scripts that should be functions but very few ppl around want to expose their work to other people. That is why I am against matcho programing popularised by short code camp (for example, corrupt told me that he understands nonsence constructs present in CMDRet function to fill struct parameters, he even had will to argue that it is cool like that, despite the obvious facts that such thing is obfuscation). People should think more about community and less about themselves. On long run they will have less work, but somehow that is not understood.
Some interesting philosophy that goes along with some things I mention:
Matz's primary design consideration is to make programmers happy by reducing the menial work they must do, following the principles of good user interface design. He stresses that systems design needs to emphasize human, rather than computer, needs:
Often people, especially computer engineers, focus on the machines. They think, "By doing this, the machine will run faster. By doing this, the machine will run more effectively. By doing this, the machine will something something something." They are focusing on machines. But in fact we need to focus on humans, on how humans care about doing programming or operating the application of the machines. We are the masters. They are the slaves.
Ruby is said to follow the principle of least surprise (POLS), meaning that the language typically behaves intuitively or as the programmer assumes it should. The phrase did not originate with Matz and, generally speaking, Ruby may more closely follow a paradigm best termed as "Matz's Least Surprise", though many programmers have found it to be close to their own mental model as well.
Matz defined it this way in an interview:
Everyone has an individual background. Someone may come from Python, someone else may come from Perl, and they may be surprised by different aspects of the language. Then they come up to me and say, 'I was surprised by this feature of the language, so Ruby violates the principle of least surprise.' Wait. Wait. The principle of least surprise is not for you only. The principle of least surprise means principle of least my surprise. And it means the principle of least surprise after you learn Ruby very well. For example, I was a C++ programmer before I started designing Ruby. I programmed in C++ exclusively for two or three years. And after two years of C++ programming, it still surprised me.