Subject: Re: [boost] [locale] Review of Boost.Locale library
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-17 18:00:37
Edward Diener wrote:
> > In theory, it's more correct to translate from X to Y, but in practice,
> > it's hard to find people who are simultaneously fluent enough in X
> > software terminology and Y software terminology to be able to produce a
> > high quality translation.
> But it is easier to find someone who is fluent enough in X and E and Y to
> do so ?
No, it's easier to find someone fluent enough in X and E, and someone else
fluent enough in E and Y.
> > And in any event, the fact that the source texts are in E shouldn't
> > preclude your translating from X to Y. You just take the translation
> > text file for X which is basically a list of (E phrase, X phrase) pairs,
> > and translate the X phrases to Y phrases. This requires no E knowledge
> > on your part.
> If only such a simplistic means of translating between 2 languages
> actually existed. I doubt it, even in the limited use of programming
> phrases. I know in my own area of expertise, literature, it does not exist
> but I will grant that the needs of a computer program may be much less
> linguistic precision. But even a computer program still deals in end-users
> who want to see text that makes sense to them in their own language rather
> than pig-latin type gobbledygook which they will laugh at. We are talking
> about computer users who will pay for a computer program in their own
> language and commercial companies who can not deliver poor quality in that
> regard and hope to be successful.
I have no idea what you mean, or how it relates to my statement above.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk