Python and Ruby
in [Python]
|
From: Robert Kern on 4 Feb 2010 17:56 On 2010-02-04 14:55 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote: > On Feb 3, 3:39 pm, Steve Holden<st...(a)holdenweb.com> wrote: >> Robert Kern wrote: >>> On 2010-02-03 15:32 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote: >> >>>> I can explain all of Python in an hour; I doubt anyone will understand >>>> all of Python in an hour. >> >>> With all respect, talking about a subject without a reasonable chance of >>> your audience understanding the subject afterwards is not explaining. >>> It's just exposition. >> >> I agree. If the audience doesn't understand then you haven't explained it. > > On the contrary, that explanation would have everything you need. It > would take an hour to read or listen to the explanation, but much more > than that time to truly understand everything that was said. Like I said, that's exposition, not explanation. There is an important distinction between the two words. Simply providing information is not explanation. If it takes four hours for your audience to understand it, then you explained it in four hours no matter when you stopped talking. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco
From: Ethan Furman on 4 Feb 2010 18:46 Robert Kern wrote: > On 2010-02-04 14:55 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote: >> On Feb 3, 3:39 pm, Steve Holden<st...(a)holdenweb.com> wrote: >>> Robert Kern wrote: >>>> On 2010-02-03 15:32 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote: >>> >>>>> I can explain all of Python in an hour; I doubt anyone will understand >>>>> all of Python in an hour. >>> >>>> With all respect, talking about a subject without a reasonable >>>> chance of >>>> your audience understanding the subject afterwards is not explaining. >>>> It's just exposition. >>> >>> I agree. If the audience doesn't understand then you haven't >>> explained it. >> >> On the contrary, that explanation would have everything you need. It >> would take an hour to read or listen to the explanation, but much more >> than that time to truly understand everything that was said. > > Like I said, that's exposition, not explanation. There is an important > distinction between the two words. Simply providing information is not > explanation. If it takes four hours for your audience to understand it, > then you explained it in four hours no matter when you stopped talking. > And if it takes six months? Would you seriously say it took you six months to explain something because it took that long for your audience to understand it? At some point you have to make the transition from person A explaining and person(s) B understanding -- they don't necessarily happen synchronously. As a real-life example, I've read several Python books, tutorials, and this list for quite some time, some of which has very good explanatory material, and yet some of the points I didn't fully comprehend until much, much later. Every time, though, it's still the same reaction: I *love* Python! :D ~Ethan~
From: mk on 5 Feb 2010 07:13 Steve Holden wrote: >>> Jeez, Steve, you're beginning to sound like some kind of fallacy >>> zealot... ;) >> Death to all those who confuse agumentum ad populum with argumentum ad >> verecundiam!!! >> >> > Yeah, what did the zealots ever do for us? They produced Python? .. .. .. Oh Python! Shut up!
From: Robert Kern on 5 Feb 2010 16:03 On 2010-02-04 17:46 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: > Robert Kern wrote: >> On 2010-02-04 14:55 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote: >>> On Feb 3, 3:39 pm, Steve Holden<st...(a)holdenweb.com> wrote: >>>> Robert Kern wrote: >>>>> On 2010-02-03 15:32 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I can explain all of Python in an hour; I doubt anyone will >>>>>> understand >>>>>> all of Python in an hour. >>>> >>>>> With all respect, talking about a subject without a reasonable >>>>> chance of >>>>> your audience understanding the subject afterwards is not explaining. >>>>> It's just exposition. >>>> >>>> I agree. If the audience doesn't understand then you haven't >>>> explained it. >>> >>> On the contrary, that explanation would have everything you need. It >>> would take an hour to read or listen to the explanation, but much more >>> than that time to truly understand everything that was said. >> >> Like I said, that's exposition, not explanation. There is an important >> distinction between the two words. Simply providing information is not >> explanation. If it takes four hours for your audience to understand >> it, then you explained it in four hours no matter when you stopped >> talking. > > And if it takes six months? Would you seriously say it took you six > months to explain something because it took that long for your audience > to understand it? > > At some point you have to make the transition from person A explaining > and person(s) B understanding -- they don't necessarily happen > synchronously. Then it's exposition and understanding, not explanation and understanding. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco
From: Ethan Furman on 5 Feb 2010 16:39
Robert Kern wrote: > On 2010-02-04 17:46 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: >> Robert Kern wrote: >>> On 2010-02-04 14:55 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote: >>>> On Feb 3, 3:39 pm, Steve Holden<st...(a)holdenweb.com> wrote: >>>>> Robert Kern wrote: >>>>>> On 2010-02-03 15:32 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> I can explain all of Python in an hour; I doubt anyone will >>>>>>> understand >>>>>>> all of Python in an hour. >>>>> >>>>>> With all respect, talking about a subject without a reasonable >>>>>> chance of >>>>>> your audience understanding the subject afterwards is not explaining. >>>>>> It's just exposition. >>>>> >>>>> I agree. If the audience doesn't understand then you haven't >>>>> explained it. >>>> >>>> On the contrary, that explanation would have everything you need. It >>>> would take an hour to read or listen to the explanation, but much more >>>> than that time to truly understand everything that was said. >>> >>> Like I said, that's exposition, not explanation. There is an important >>> distinction between the two words. Simply providing information is not >>> explanation. If it takes four hours for your audience to understand >>> it, then you explained it in four hours no matter when you stopped >>> talking. >> >> And if it takes six months? Would you seriously say it took you six >> months to explain something because it took that long for your audience >> to understand it? >> >> At some point you have to make the transition from person A explaining >> and person(s) B understanding -- they don't necessarily happen >> synchronously. > > Then it's exposition and understanding, not explanation and understanding. > Hmm. Well, I can see your point -- after all, if are "explaining" but your audience is not understanding, are you really explaining? Okay, looking in the dictionary... ex⋅plain –verb (used with object) 1. to make plain or clear; render understandable or intelligible: to explain an obscure point. 2. to make known in detail: to explain how to do something. un⋅der⋅stand –verb (used with object) 1. to perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend: to understand Spanish; I didn't understand your question. 2. to be thoroughly familiar with; apprehend clearly the character, nature, or subtleties of: to understand a trade. 3. to assign a meaning to; interpret: He understood her suggestion as a complaint. 4. to grasp the significance, implications, or importance of: He does not understand responsibility. For me, at least, it boils down to this feeling that understanding is not a True/False item, but more of a scale (like all the the numbers between 0.0 and 1.0 [not including 1.0 of course -- this *is* Python! ;)]). As a personal example, decorators are not that difficult to grasp -- you take your function and wrap it in another function; but what you can do with them! They are truly impressive once your understanding deepens. And at the end of the day (or this thread, whichever comes first ;) Python is awesome, and that's what counts. ~Ethan~ |