4 ms·
> 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 fa
by 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.