On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Corey Richardson <kb1...@aim.com> wrote:
> On 04/02/2011 02:16 PM, kirby urner wrote:
> > Likewise, Demented Python serves a didactic function,
> > here to remind about the decorator:
> >
> > def sillystrip( f ):
> > if f.__doc__:
> > f.__doc__ = "Your function has been hacked!"
> > else:
> > f.__doc__ = "You should always have a docstring."
> > return f
> >
> > @sillystrip
> > def square( x ):
> > """could also be a triangle"""
> > return x * x
> >
> > def _test():
> > frank = 2
> > joe = square (frank) # frank is kinda square
> > print("Hello Joe, Frank here.")
> > print(square.__doc__)
> >
> > if __name__ == "__main__":
> > _test()
>
> Did you see the PyCon2011 video on obfuscating python?
> http://blip.tv/file/4881220
>
>
Just checked this out, thanks for the pointer.
One of the most zany aspects was he's introduced as
Rev. (Reverend) yet makes no reference to this in his
biographical remarks, nor does anyone bring it up in
the Q&A out of curiosity -- just not that curious I guess,
or everyone already knows (Subgenius?), or no one
really cares (Pycons are notoriously accepting of
Diversity -- you could probably give a talk naked and
no one would raise an eyebrow).
I draw a vertical and horizontal axis and label these
"lore" and "technical stuff" respectively, then draw a
curve representing the event horizon or standard
bandwidth of the listener / learner (attender).
http://www.4dsolutions.net/presentations/p4t_notes.pdf (page 3)
This talk (Obfuscated Python) was super-duper to the
technical end with hints at lore, such as when he talks
about other languages and Curry Haskell in particular
(Turing Machine etc.).
One hallmark of a super technical talk is you want to
rewind and stare at the code. Everything seems to go
by too quickly. You focus and concentrate on the
technical aspects to the exclusion of all else, which
comes across as a distraction (unwanted noise).
When you boost the lore component, you get more
storytelling and it's more like those trade books for adults
that purport to explain math and/or physics but contain
nary an equation, or just a few to help boost the self esteem
(self confidence) of the reader.
On the other hand, other types of artistry may be on
display, such as foreshadowing, character development,
plot twists of various kinds, tone and texture (look and
feel). The humanities have their liberal arts and crafts.
It's not like optimizing bandwidth is a new challenge or
that symbols became powerful only in our lifetimes.
Once you try to capture this stuff (hermeneutics) and teach it,
you get into semantic networks, ontologies, diagrams every
bit as technical... (film and theater production are not devoid
of technical tips and tricks, or lets talk about advertising)
so there's a kind of Mobius strip at work (the art of
Paul Laffoley comes to mind, for me, at this juncture, as
both technical and lore-filled).
Take Sesame Street as another good example. There's really
not much stress understanding the Letter A in the first place,
once you've memorized your alphabet, the presumed technical
content of a Sesame Street short is far from overwhelming.
It's designed for stay-at-home guardians as well, who need
to vacuum, putter about the house, while Big Bird holds forth.
Imagine absorbing computer science concepts, along with
more of STEM, from similar video clips. Youtube already
offers plenty of opportunities.
And yet the lore takes up plenty of bandwidth and leaves
most viewers more satisfied than bored. The whole point
of television is to make "day dreaming" (so necessary
when chalkboards and droning pedants are involved)
quasi-unnecessary. The tube replaces your dreams
with its own. Of course that may serve insidious and/or
subversive ends (a nation of zombies), but this doesn't
detract from my point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GN_Qv79nnI
(the "cult of cute" in Japanese animation -- scatological)
Upshot: Python andragogy and pedagogy will develop
along different lineages. I'm pioneering zaniness as a
useful component, which takes me in the direction of
certain kinds of animation we might see on Python.tv
someday.
Vi Hart's stuff is somewhat zany, but not over the top.
Mathematicians have long ties to the surreal,
Alice in Wonderland being the work of a logician.
OLPC gets somewhat zany in places, without paying
too high a price. It's a fine line.
A tinge of darkness for happy camper campfire stories:
http://www.olpcnews.com/people/negroponte/olpc_cia_conspiracy_theory.html
http://www.olpcnews.com/prototypes/xo/olpc_xo_icon_say.html
Towards the higher end, those on the PSF list know I like
to rope in Greek mythology and play up the Python's
importance to Athena's cult (also Nike's: "Just Use It").
I'm roughly following what's known as the Parthenon Code
among conspiracy theorists, which piggy-backs on the
better known Da Vinci Code in terms of gaining name
recognition and notoriety.
Kirby
> --
> Corey Richardson
> _______________________________________________
> Edu-sig mailing list
> Edu-sig@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
>
_______________________________________________
Edu-sig mailing list
Edu-sig@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
