On balance I'm happy with the article; I've never written anything like this before and I think I've communicated the point. However, I've definitely identified areas that could be improved. For example:
- The article doesn't flow. This is because I've tried to back each assertion I make with proof at the Python interpreter. As a result the narrative flow gets over punctuated with example excerpts, and becomes difficult to read and hard to follow. Perhaps I'm too used to writing doctests! Instead, I think I should have dedicated a large set of more creative narrative to each point, and offered bigger and fuller examples to back things up.
- Not enough visuals. Many of us are visual thinkers, tending to draw pictures in our minds representing abstract concepts. One thing that I think is important about understanding namespaces is that they allow you to visualize python programs, as a sort of containment hierarchy. I really think I could of draw some attractive images to help communicate my point a little better.
- Not creative or imaginative. Although the article is technical in nature, it doesn't hurt to use a few metaphors here and there, or provide some historical context to certain features or throw in some personal reflection. Perhaps I was preoccupied with being technically accurate, so the result is a little dry.
Fortunately, next month (Feb), I'm writing a follow-up on Python scopes which ties in quite nicely with namespaces. This is the perfect opportunity to address these issues and write a better article!
