I will watch them all!
I like your dry sense of humour but I feel sometimes you draw too much attention to it, which is distracting, you have a great delivery for humour that slips seamlessly into the text, so it should almost go unnoticed.
For example:
Quote: "But what is source code? Source code is the fancy term for... a text file."
Great, but you draw too much attention to this with the following:
Quote: "Yeah, it's no more complicated than that. It's just a file of text that sits on your hard-drive."
And follow with:
Quote: "Once written, we use a mysterious and magical word, "compiler", which converts our text file into something the computer can understand natively."
Again possibly too much explanation/dwelling on the point:
Quote: "A bit like a foreign language translator."
Removing the bits I think are unnecessary:
Quote: "But what is source code? Source code is the fancy term for... a text file. Once written, we use a mysterious and magical word, "compiler", which converts our text file into something the computer can understand natively."
I think this works much better and the humour actually benefits from not being dwelled upon.
Did you actually say "we use a mysterious and magical word, 'compiler'"? The term 'word' seems out of place here and the order of the sentence is hard to follow. Might be better to phrase it a different way (and I also put in some extra explanation to make up for removing the "like a language translator" part):
Quote: "But what is source code? Source code is the fancy term for... a text file. Once written, we convert our text file from human-readable code into something the computer can understand natively, by using a mysterious and magical "compiler"."
Another example at the end. I like the whole Natasha Davies thing, and I think this is the one part of the video where it is okay to go off on a bigger tangent: it works as a nice indicator that the lesson is coming to an close.
Here is the original:
Quote: "So, how do I do this coding thingy?
To code, or program, you need a special kind of text editor: one with a compiler built into it and ready to go. Okay, sure, you could take the complicated route and write your program in notepad and then compile it manually using the right tools, but who the hell wants to do that, that's just showing off; and we're nowhere near clever enough to show off just yet. So we'll leave that stuff for later, you know, when we need to brag at programming parties, and point out to non-techies how supremely uninformed they are to make up for not having Natasha Davies from your comprehensive school clinging to your arm. Err, don't ask. So yeah, back to the point. To start programming, or coding, which are the same thing, you need to install an IDE. In the next video I will show you how to install this mysterious IDE, and what to do, and what not to do, and what you might want to do, what you can't do, and what is physically impossible even if Natasha Davies does ask you to do it."
And how I would edit it:
Quote: "So, how do I do this coding thingy?
To code, or program, which are the same thing, you need a special kind of text editor: one with a compiler built into it and ready to go. Okay, technically, you could take the complicated route and write your program in notepad and then compile it manually using the right tools, but that's just showing off. We'll leave that stuff for when we need to brag at programming parties and point out to non-techies how supremely uninformed they are to make up for not having Natasha Davies from your comprehensive school clinging to your arm.
To start programming, or coding, which are the same thing, you need to install an IDE. In the next video I will show you how to install this mysterious IDE, and what to do, and what not to do, and what you might want to do, what you can't do, and what is physically impossible even if Natasha Davies does ask you to do it."
The following line I removed sums up what I think you should change in general:
"Err, don't ask. So yeah, back to the point." I think it's much funnier (and more fluent) if the narrator is completely oblivious to the fact that he went off on a tangent and just carries on as normal.
I also added
"which are the same thing" to the first mention of coding/programming, as it is in the second mention and I think the repetition is funny but also helpful. Did you intend to switch the terms around in the second case:
To start programming, or coding, which are the same thing because I think that's subtly funny since they are interchangeable.
This reminds me of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in a way.
The difficulty in learning is not acquiring new knowledge but relinquishing the old.
