6 ms·

I agree with this in theory... but do you really want my garbage, ad hoc, messy code that I used to pipe output from one program to another?

bravura 11y ago
Yes. Especially because if you are forced to publish your code, it will be better.
return0 11y ago
Absolutely yes. Science isnt supposed to be clean and tidy, but reproducible.
nv-vn 11y ago
Considering that a mistake in such a program could completely skew results, yeah that seems pretty important.
lacker 11y ago
Yes, because if it doesn't even compile then I will call BS on your results.
- skybrian 11y ago
  See, that's exactly what you shouldn't do if you want to encourage academics to release the source code. Academic code sometimes only has been made to work on one machine (the author's). Someone reproducing the results should still have access to the source, even if they have to hack it to work on their system.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
themartorana 11y ago
I don't know... Did you do it right? ;) But seriously.
CompuHacker 11y ago
It's better than nothing.
cube00 11y ago
Definitely yes, then I can see if somewhere in that garbage, ad hoc, messy code why I can't replicate the result myself.
skybrian 11y ago
I'm not actually recommending this license, but it seems relevant to mention: The CRAPL: An academic-strength open source license http://matt.might.net/articles/crapl/ http://matt.might.net/articles/crapl/
- marvy 11y ago
  "the Community Research and Academic Programming License"
mrcsparker 11y ago
Yes, please. To be fair, a lot of people do publish their working code with the paper. It helps people like me understand how to do the work. Bad code is fine, good code is better, great code is great. Stick to fine and I can do my job and you can write papers knowing that your work will be used by many.
zmmmmm 11y ago
If it's that garbage, how do you know your results are correct? It should be at least non-garbage enough that someone else could theoretically check it, or you're not doing science at all.
- jjoonathan 11y ago
  You don't. But there are 5x-100x more bugs lurking in the methodology so triage is the name of the game. A much bigger problem is that grantsmanship strongly incentivizes against verifying your methodology and being diligent in your construction of null hypotheses.
nilkn 11y ago
To be honest, I'm surprised anybody even takes research seriously which depends heavily on a custom program whose source code is kept hidden.
euske 11y ago
This is like saying "I don't want to file a tax because my handwriting is bad". Well, if you're embarrassed by your terrible handwriting, maybe it's a time to put some effort to improve it.
- dinkumthinkum 11y ago
  Ok I don't mean this in a mean way but you don't seem to appreciate what CS research is like. It is not about handwriting.
  - Sacho 11y ago
    Filing taxes is not about handwriting either - I guess you missed the analogy. Research isn't about writing good code, but publishing your code is useful(for reproducibility, which is part of research), and if you're embarrassed by your code quality, then you should put some effort into it.

bravura 11y ago

Yes. Especially because if you are forced to publish your code, it will be better.

return0 11y ago

Absolutely yes. Science isnt supposed to be clean and tidy, but reproducible.

nv-vn 11y ago

Considering that a mistake in such a program could completely skew results, yeah that seems pretty important.

lacker 11y ago

Yes, because if it doesn't even compile then I will call BS on your results.

skybrian 11y ago
See, that's exactly what you shouldn't do if you want to encourage academics to release the source code. Academic code sometimes only has been made to work on one machine (the author's). Someone reproducing the results should still have access to the source, even if they have to hack it to work on their system.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

themartorana 11y ago

I don't know... Did you do it right? ;) But seriously.

CompuHacker 11y ago

It's better than nothing.

cube00 11y ago

Definitely yes, then I can see if somewhere in that garbage, ad hoc, messy code why I can't replicate the result myself.

skybrian 11y ago

I'm not actually recommending this license, but it seems relevant to mention: The CRAPL: An academic-strength open source license http://matt.might.net/articles/crapl/ http://matt.might.net/articles/crapl/

marvy 11y ago
"the Community Research and Academic Programming License"

mrcsparker 11y ago

Yes, please. To be fair, a lot of people do publish their working code with the paper. It helps people like me understand how to do the work. Bad code is fine, good code is better, great code is great. Stick to fine and I can do my job and you can write papers knowing that your work will be used by many.

zmmmmm 11y ago

If it's that garbage, how do you know your results are correct? It should be at least non-garbage enough that someone else could theoretically check it, or you're not doing science at all.

jjoonathan 11y ago
You don't. But there are 5x-100x more bugs lurking in the methodology so triage is the name of the game. A much bigger problem is that grantsmanship strongly incentivizes against verifying your methodology and being diligent in your construction of null hypotheses.

nilkn 11y ago

To be honest, I'm surprised anybody even takes research seriously which depends heavily on a custom program whose source code is kept hidden.

euske 11y ago

This is like saying "I don't want to file a tax because my handwriting is bad". Well, if you're embarrassed by your terrible handwriting, maybe it's a time to put some effort to improve it.

dinkumthinkum 11y ago
Ok I don't mean this in a mean way but you don't seem to appreciate what CS research is like. It is not about handwriting.
- Sacho 11y ago
  Filing taxes is not about handwriting either - I guess you missed the analogy. Research isn't about writing good code, but publishing your code is useful(for reproducibility, which is part of research), and if you're embarrassed by your code quality, then you should put some effort into it.