[simplyinfinity]

Yeah, localized languages don't work that well on global scale.

Side effects may include large number of bubble communities not being able to contribute to one another which leads to fragmentation and friction. What will happen to large open source communities? Will those have only French people working on networking and Russians working on CPUs ? Also large companies won't be able to hire from smaller programmer pools because they will have to learn yet another spoken language.

[matsemann]

They don't have to be for a global scale, though.

Learning programming as a kid, it could be easier when the standard library has functions in the native language. Learning if, while etc are easy as they are just tokens. But the hundreds of functions are hard to look up when one's new and cannot easily understand what a function does based on a foreign description.

[badsectoracula]

I was a kid, what the words meant in English didn't matter much (e.g. i was learning Pascal and it took years until i learned what 'procedure' means), they were essentially symbols. They wouldn't really be helpful.

I just had a book in my native language which explained things.

[SamBam]

I'm not so sure. At that point, why have programming instructions be words at all? Why not make everything a 3-character symbol?

While you certainly can learn a programming language without any understanding of the keywords, I don't think you can really say that it doesn't help if you do know them. My kid is learning Scratch, and I didn't have to explain to her what the "REPEAT" block would do.

[spc476]

I came across a reference to such a language in the January 1986 issue of "Computer Language" (I have the magazine right in front of me as I type) and the idea has remained firmly lodged in my brain ever since. Some examples:

    (!i = 0 , 2 .. 15
      r = foobar(i)
    !r = 0)

This sets `i` to be the even values less than 15 and will repeat until the result of `foobar()` is not 0. The expressions on either end are optional.

    ?char = 'x' : result = 'y'

A simple if statement. This can be extended:

    (?m
      = copy : sub(1)
      = find : sub(2)
      = quit : sub(3)
     ?)

Unfortunately, the article is only two pages, and it doesn't cover everything and I've been unable to find anything else about the language, but it was a very cool idea.

[badsectoracula]

Words are easier to read and write even if you do not understand their real life meaning, especially since computers are still made with a primary input device for typing words, and allow for way more distinct and readable variations (26 letters + numbers vs just the few symbols on the keyboard). And while they aren't that helpful when learning as a kid, they can still be very helpful later when you have to tackle way more - remember that the argument was about kids learning.