3 ms·
> Publishing your code (at all) does not mean you have to make it production-quality or provide support for it. No. If you publish something that's incomplete
by kardos 11y ago
> Publishing your code (at all) does not mean you have to make it production-quality or provide support for it.
No. If you publish something that's incomplete or doesn't have all the right dependencies listed, etc, it's not really of any use. Writing up compiling instructions plus dependencies plus how to run it plus input files etc takes time and by the time you've got it to the state that someone else can run it, now it's "production-quality".
> Given that, it seems reasonable that you should make the modicum of effort to publish your code.
There's currently no incentive/requirement to publish code, it uses time and does not increment your publication counter. Find the incentive and you'll start seeing published code.
- morgante 11y ago> No. If you publish something that's incomplete or doesn't have all the right dependencies listed, etc, it's not really of any use. Again you're creating a false dichotomy which is just fundamentally false. Even if you only published half your code—to the point where it doesn't even compile—that's still helpful. In the status quo, I have to write your entire code from scratch. If you published what you have, I would merely have to debug the issues and figure out what the dependencies are. I don't understand why it's so hard to understand that some code is better than no code.
- kardos 11y ago> I guess researchers really are so incompetent with software that they think code which requires debugging is useless. So published papers are held to a high standard -- filtered through editors and peer review -- while publishing code can be half-assed at best? I still disagree; if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.
- calgoo 11y agoexactly, even if its just algorithms, i can fit them into another code-base. Its also a lot easier to re-write code if you have something to base it on.