[traceroute66]

> Usually, when a thing gets labeled as a dream, people don't try very hard either.

Some things are hard, but worth trying.

Other things are a dream because the reality is they are unachievable either due to the realities of practical constraints or because the amount of work involved would be hugely disproportionate to the benefit.

For example, I mentioned Kartvelian languages. How about we specifically look at Laz which according to Wikipedia at the last count in 1980 had only 22,000 native speakers.

Writing a Laz compiler ? I'd say if we're being totally honest its a dream, not just "hard work".

[pyrale]

> the amount of work involved would be hugely disproportionate to the benefit.

And you can trust english speakers to properly assess the benefits of I18N, right?

> Writing a Laz compiler ? I'd say if we're being totally honest its a dream, not just "hard work".

As I said in the message you quote, internationalizing a compiler is not the same as rewriting it. If you consider that making languages accessible to other languages means each natural language should have its own programming language and compiler, of course it's going to be hard.

But that's moving the goalposts.

First off, you don't need to port a programming language to every natural language. Some smaller goals would already help. For instance, making it easy for third parties to i18n the language and libraries would be a significant enabler.

[JadeNB]

> Writing a Laz compiler ? I'd say if we're being totally honest its a dream, not just "hard work".

This seems like letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. "We can't possibly localize for every possible language ever" is not much of an argument for why localization itself isn't worth it.