On 6/15/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">kirby urner</b> <<a href="mailto:kirby.urner@gmail.com">kirby.urner@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br><div><div><br>What I think has happened is CS has shed its skin as a wannabe<br>staid math, has proved its points, in terms of utility, sophistication,<br>future etc., and now can afford any pretense at trying to be
<br>pretentious. The readership is there, already impressed and ready</div></div></blockquote><div><br><br>"can afford to lose..." I should have said.<br><br>In other words, we *don't* want a purely lexical approach where we do like those old math books and just go theorem, proof, remarks, definitions, theorem, sardonic remark, proof, corollary, small figure, definitions, more weird notation, theorem, proof. Index.
<br><br>We're planning to get way more right brained about all this, in part because we're moving away from static text to more animated and interactive interfaces. Like the DoD does, in training its recruits (sometimes using Python as a glue language, like we saw at Pycon that time (West Point grads train in a modified Unreal Tournament engine simulating needing to know how to speak Iraqi politely or die, with a voice recognizer ala Dragon's a part of the VR apparatus)).
<br><br>Kirby<br><br></div></div>