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...@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~
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
