4 ms·

I don't exactly agree with this. As a scientist myself, the term "terrible programmer" is a little bit harsh. Scientists (and the general population) are not p

by kensai 9y ago

I don't exactly agree with this. As a scientist myself, the term "terrible programmer" is a little bit harsh. Scientists (and the general population) are not professional programmers. If the need arises, they hire one. Scientists usually need to jot down a prototype and a model in order to see if their theory works. It's like comparing a physician with a prepper. A prepper might know how to use some first-aid methods and tools, but is not expected to act as a trauma surgeon or emergency doctor. She has just the right knowledge for the task in hand. Yeah, Python might simply be Hansaplast in this case, but who cares if you are alone? :p

Chris2048 9y ago
Isn't it fair to say a prepper is a "terrible trauma surgeon" in context of whether or not a professional should be brought in or not?
- kensai 9y ago
  No, because his "terrible-ness" has to do with priorities. A scientist's priority is usually to make a fast prototype or model of her theory. I see it at least in my own field (biomedicine). IF you need a real software developer for some extended work, you hire one. But to call scientists lousy programmers is like calling every driver on this earth lousy driver (in respect to Formula 1 drivers, for example).
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    > A scientist's priority is.. Don't you mean a programmer? A fine scientist can still be a terrible programmer. > to call scientists lousy programmers is like calling every driver on this earth lousy driver Why? Most drivers on earth are fine drivers, terrible F1 drivers. Maybe most scientists are fine scientists, terrible programmers?
    - hobarrera 9y ago
      Most drivers on earth are terrible drivers.
knappe 9y ago
As a scientist, astronomer and professional software engineer, I have to say the grandparent is spot on. I've untangled a lot of really, really bad science code. I've seen the gamut too, having worked in high powered computing on many different models across many different fields. In general the code is just terrible, but it gets the job done. Just not efficiently or sometimes accurately (bugs abound).

by kensai 9y ago

Chris2048 9y ago

Isn't it fair to say a prepper is a "terrible trauma surgeon" in context of whether or not a professional should be brought in or not?

kensai 9y ago
No, because his "terrible-ness" has to do with priorities. A scientist's priority is usually to make a fast prototype or model of her theory. I see it at least in my own field (biomedicine). IF you need a real software developer for some extended work, you hire one. But to call scientists lousy programmers is like calling every driver on this earth lousy driver (in respect to Formula 1 drivers, for example).
- Chris2048 9y ago
  > A scientist's priority is.. Don't you mean a programmer? A fine scientist can still be a terrible programmer. > to call scientists lousy programmers is like calling every driver on this earth lousy driver Why? Most drivers on earth are fine drivers, terrible F1 drivers. Maybe most scientists are fine scientists, terrible programmers?
  - hobarrera 9y ago
    Most drivers on earth are terrible drivers.

knappe 9y ago

As a scientist, astronomer and professional software engineer, I have to say the grandparent is spot on. I've untangled a lot of really, really bad science code. I've seen the gamut too, having worked in high powered computing on many different models across many different fields. In general the code is just terrible, but it gets the job done. Just not efficiently or sometimes accurately (bugs abound).