About languages and internationalization. Unicode is touted to only cover living languages, not ancient languages. Yeah, that may have seemed reasonable at the time that Unicode was first being developed, but now that it’s an international standard, what about the future? What about when present-day living languages become archaic languages? Will Unicode still provide coverage over those languages, or will it somehow deprecate the old meaning of the codes and re-assign them to make room for new languages? Well, this really hinges on the future of technology. At the time that Unicode was introduced, computers were a very primitive technology that could barely support 16-bit Unicode due to severe memory limitations. Many compromises were taken, such as Han Unification, to try to squash the full spectrum of Unicode into computer systems that were actually too small to work with it. But, technology has since considerably advanced, and now we are adding colored Emoji to the Unicode Standard!
So yes, if future computers are far more powerful than present-day computers, it could just as well be the case that Unicode maintains support for past languages that were a living language at times past, but are now archaic languages. There would be no logical reason to say that those codes are invalid since there would be more than enough address space for the new language characters to expand into. The standard might say that it is not required for conforming implementations to render those codes, but there would be no need to reassign them.
Now, consider a case to the contrary. Many thousands of years into the future, computer technology fails to appreciably advance. In that case, due to technological limitations, it would be necessary to assign version numbers to the code to indicate that old characters have been deprecated and have a different meaning in modern use. As a matter of fact, most modern implementations would simply fail if they encounter an older version of Unicode, as there would be no practical way for them to contain all the characters necessary to render in those older versions of Unicode.
What, localization is not done in software source code? That puts us at odds with the rest of the world of software. Will it be the case that many thousands of years into the future, software source code will be written in a highly specialized natural language that only those with advanced education can understand? Actually, come to think of it, I don’t think so. Just look at the language landscape in the present. In the present, people are constantly rewriting known algorithms in new programming languages. They seem to have no problem with this at all. So it’s conceivable to believe that in the future, when the old natural languages of times past that were previously very popular in the computing profession are no longer that popular at all, people would have successfully rewritten the source code of all important software to use the natural language of the modern practicing population, and there would in fact be no issue at all whatsoever.
-
It kind of just rambles on in language. Yeah, you type out a whole bunch of words, but it doesn’t really represent a high point in technological development. Not like programmer’s reference documentation that is highly compact and conveys only the most important information you need to understand how something works.
Yeah, actually, if you want to do this technical writing correctly, you’ve got to split up your documentation into sections. You can have a high-level introduction to the technology (or technicality), examples on using the technology, the results of executing those samples, and the reference section that concentrates on only specifying facts of the implementation, including dependencies. Also, very high level dependencies are specified in the introductory material too.