> this answer reads as though it was written by someone who has not done any extensive i18n work in their life. Languages are not 1:1 translatable.
I argue that i18n is not translation.
It seems like you're making a point for solving problems beyond the scope of PL internationalization, including problems that are not solved when it comes to how english code translates to english natural language.
My original point is that foreign excel versions already did help people. From there, improving compilers to make that work easier and less costly is a reasonable goal, or at least a tractable one. Some of that work is already being done for unrelated reasons (e.g. modern compilers offer interfaces for LSPs as well as error messages in formats that allow processing beyond reading for CIs — both of these changes benefit potential i18n efforts).
I argue that i18n is not translation.
It seems like you're making a point for solving problems beyond the scope of PL internationalization, including problems that are not solved when it comes to how english code translates to english natural language.
My original point is that foreign excel versions already did help people. From there, improving compilers to make that work easier and less costly is a reasonable goal, or at least a tractable one. Some of that work is already being done for unrelated reasons (e.g. modern compilers offer interfaces for LSPs as well as error messages in formats that allow processing beyond reading for CIs — both of these changes benefit potential i18n efforts).