Thoughts: time warp to 2017


Using Python's namedtuple for mock objects in tests

I have become quite a fan of Python's built-in namedtuple collection lately. As others have already written, despite having been available in Python 2.x and 3.x for a long time now, namedtuple continues to be under-appreciated and under-utilised by many programmers.

# The ol'fashioned tuple way
fruits = [
    ('banana', 'medium', 'yellow'),
    ('watermelon', 'large', 'pink')]

for fruit in fruits:
    print('A {0} is coloured {1} and is {2} sized'.format(
        fruit[0], fruit[2], fruit[1]))

# The nicer namedtuple way
from collections import namedtuple

Fruit = namedtuple('Fruit', 'name size colour')

fruits = [
    Fruit(name='banana', size='medium', colour='yellow'),
    Fruit(name='watermelon', size='large', colour='pink')]

for fruit in fruits:
    print('A {0} is coloured {1} and is {2} sized'.format(, fruit.colour, fruit.size))

namedtuples can be used in a few obvious situations in Python. I'd like to present a new and less obvious situation, that I haven't seen any examples of elsewhere: using a namedtuple instead of MagicMock or flexmock, for mocking objects in unit tests.


The Jobless Games

There is growing concern worldwide about the rise of automation, and about the looming mass unemployment that will logically result from it. In particular, the phenomenon of driverless cars – which will otherwise be one of the coolest and the most beneficial technologies of our time – is virtually guaranteed to relegate to the dustbin of history the "paid human driver", a vocation currently pursued by over 10 million people in the US alone.

Them robots are gonna take our jobs!

Them robots are gonna take our jobs!

Image source: Day of the Robot.

Most discussion of late seems to treat this encroaching joblessness entirely as an economic issue. Families without incomes, spiralling wealth inequality, broken taxation mechanisms. And, consequently, the solutions being proposed are mainly economic ones. For example, a Universal Basic Income to help everyone make ends meet. However, in my opinion, those economic issues are actually relatively easy to address, and as a matter of sheer necessity we will sort them out sooner or later, via a UBI or via whatever else fits the bill.

The more pertinent issue is actually a social and a psychological one. Namely: how will people keep themselves occupied in such a world? How will people nourish their ambitions, feel that they have a purpose in life, and feel that they make a valuable contribution to society? How will we prevent the malaise of despair, depression, and crime from engulfing those who lack gainful enterprise? To borrow the colourful analogy that others have penned: assuming that there's food on the table either way, how do we head towards a Star Trek rather than a Mad Max future?