Why Do Many Developers Oppose Using Chinese in Code?

In a recent tech group chat, a newcomer posted code with all‑pinyin variable names, prompting peers to correct him; he defended using pinyin instead of Chinese characters, sparking further debate.

The author recalls seeing a senior’s variable named shijian, which could mean “time” or “event”; without context, even the author struggled to interpret it later, likening the experience to decoding.

The first technical issue is the ambiguity of pinyin: Chinese homophones are abundant, so a name like shijian may be clear to the writer but becomes confusing after weeks or months.

Second, input efficiency suffers in Linux terminals or embedded SSH sessions because switching input methods repeatedly interrupts the coding flow and dramatically reduces productivity.

Some ask whether using Chinese characters directly is feasible. While languages such as Python and Java allow Unicode identifiers syntactically, in real projects they become disastrous.

In the author’s former multinational team (India, Germany, USA), colleagues could neither read nor search Chinese identifiers, Git commit messages turned garbled, and code reviews stalled.

Even within purely domestic teams, editor and OS support for Chinese varies; code written on Windows often fails to compile on Linux servers due to encoding errors.

The broader technical ecosystem also mandates English: about 99% of open‑source projects, documentation, and Stack Overflow discussions are in English, so searching for problems with Chinese keywords yields no results.

It is important to separate identifiers from comments: identifiers (variables, functions) are part of the code and need to be universally understandable, whereas comments are human‑readable explanations where Chinese can improve clarity.

The author has seen many experienced programmers with limited English who adopt simple English words for identifiers and use detailed Chinese comments for complex logic—a pragmatic compromise.

Programming languages are inherently international; a function like getUserInfo() is instantly understandable by developers worldwide.

Keywords are English not because of cultural dominance but due to historical convention—computer science originated in the English‑speaking world, similar to Arabic numerals in mathematics.

While it is technically possible to break this convention, the cost is enormous.

The real barrier to Chinese programmers’ growth is not the language of code but their technical thinking and engineering skills.

If developers cannot grasp basic English identifiers such as getUserInfo or calculateTotal, they need to improve their professional English, not argue over code language.

Recent Chinese‑only programming language “易语言” lowers the entry barrier but is mainly used by non‑professional programmers; commercial or enterprise projects rarely adopt it because it cannot address core engineering challenges.

In summary, using English for code is a practical choice for efficient communication, akin to speaking Mandarin in formal settings—not because Mandarin is superior, but because it ensures broader understanding.