This really doesn't need discussion. English is simply the language for science and computer stuff, just as latin used to be in the past (not for the computer stuff, but for science).
I'm not an expert, but I would suspect there many disciplines have a language that is commonly used, and it so happens that Comp Sci happens to be English.
That is, words like "tempo," "crescendo," and "forte" are Italian in origin, but who's going to say, no, they're not English? They're native enough.
Now, let's take a discipline with non-English terms. Take Go for example. There are many terms in Go that are shared between Chinese, Japanese, and Korean schools. They can be written similarly in hanzi/kanji/hanja, with two catches: 1., the same characters are read differently in different places; 2., Westerners, using exclusively the Latin alphabet for their native needs, cannot read the hieroglyphs.
The result? What term should English speakers use? Pick one! Which one? Whichever! For Go, the Western world picked Japanese. You have ko, moku, seki... So which was the common language? There are now two answers. First, there was a common script, which was Chinese characters. Second, there was a commonized pronunciation, which came from Romanized Japanese.
It's not a "so happens to be" thing. It's a speed and scale of adoption thing, and in this way it is a "majority wins" game. And here, the winner is the Latin alphabet. To come around, I would suspect there are few disciplines that do not turn into a Latin-alphabet-standardized-, and in effect, English-, field.
Just as programming languages are expressive in different ways, so are spoken languages, and the designers of programming languages, when exposed to a few ways of structuring ideas, end up writing code the same way.
You can argue that mathematically they are all the same. The computer doesn't care, but the human-readable code is different. If you have ever structured your code so it reads more like English (example: _why's poignant guide), it reflects this thought process.
Another example: somebody once remarked that lisp is a counterintiutive way of structuring code because that's not how language is normally used. If one has learned a few other spoken languages, it is immediately obvious how intuitive the lisp syntax is.
Of course, again, on the metal it makes no difference, so technically we can all "not care"... but when I see elegant code, it's elegant both to the computer and to the human, and that's where it's art, otherwise it's just raw optimization.