Mathematics offers a standardized, internationally accepted notation for its various problem domains. Turkish is not the standard language of software comments. So I don't think the analogy holds.

Neither is math. My guess is that you will find many more Chinese programmers who understand English comments than those that understand high-school mathematics symbols.

I would venture that any such programmers ought not work on a math-intensive domain like signal processing. Sure, not every programmer has to know high school math. You can, for example, do great work with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript without knowing high school math. But there are certain fields where math is unavoidable. Signal processing is one of them. And the internationally accepted notation for such math is part of what you're expected to know.

BWT, I assume you're not saying China uses different mathematical notation. I wouldn't know about that. If so, then that does undermine my argument.

That's because mathematicians need notational flexibility, because more formal (unambiguous) syntax would hurt their ability to digest huge chunks of data at once. At least that's what I read somewhere in defence of mathematical, cryptic and ambiguous notation.

It sounds suspiciously similar to what Lispers say about macros and s-exps, btw ;)

"If the terminology gets in the way of their understanding, then use a different terminology."

Literally the reason mathematics exists.

I think that's an uninformed metaphor because it assumes both math is totally foreign and should be able to be read by anyone. if you write code for a server that handles HTTP requests you wouldn't explain the guts of HTTP in your comments, you'd just assume if the reader wants to know more they'll figure it out themselves.

I think sometimes mathematical definitions, especially advanced ones that rely on simpler definitions, are too complicated/long to recant every time you use them, which you have to. If I want to prove something relating or relying on uniform continuity I don't want to state the definition every time both because its repetitive and because definitions often use the same notation, so I don't want my uniform continuity deltas and epsilons getting confused with my normal continuity epsilons and deltas. Try proving advanced things about field extensions and galois theory using induction like that and you may actually run out of symbols.

That being said it is hard to read real math writing/research which can be both dense and obtuse even if you're used to it. Maybe that's why you need a PhD to consider entering the field.

It merely assumes that his co-workers, who did not fluently speak mathematical notation, should somehow learn a foreign language to keep up. I find the idea of being obtuse toward a co-worker who does not speak the same language someone I would have reservations about working with, myself.