Carl R. Witty
17 Feb 2002 19:38:05 -0800
"Claus Reinke" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Haskell definitely supports abstraction and composition, so we can
> factor out application aspects (not just text) that need localisation,
> and link them (dynamically?) with the main parts of our applications.
> Some systematic approach would be useful, but apart from keeping
> track of the issues raised in the standards committees, I don't see
> why Haskellers should limit themselves to "the" standard way of
> patching C#/Java apps with translated text fragments.
I think there is a good reason to use standard localisation methods;
it makes it cheaper/more likely to happen. It sounds like you're
advocating localisation methods which would require the translators to
know Haskell; this would make hiring translators more expensive (for a
commercial proposition) or significantly reduce your pool of
volunteers (if you rely on volunteer translators).