3 ms·
Sure, the code is usually pretty ugly, but it also tends to work. The people who write it view software as just another tool, so they care more about working t
by username223 9y ago
Sure, the code is usually pretty ugly, but it also tends to work. The people who write it view software as just another tool, so they care more about working than looking pretty.
> Oh, and there will almost never be even a single regression test.
Bullshit. "Codes" tend to be run against analytical and/or experimental results.
- hueving 9y agoIt's not about looking pretty. It's about being composable, extendable, testable, and portable to other languages and architectures. The fact that you think looking pretty has anything to do with sound software engineering further illustrates my point. >Bullshit. "Codes" tend to be run against analytical and/or experimental results. A README that says the author ran it against dataset Y and got X is not a regression test. I'm talking about automated tests run on every proposed patch to ensure the thing is never broken. Real automated tests that cover 90%+ of branches are about as rare as unicorns in scientific computing (much to my annoyance). Don't get me wrong, I completely understand why people running experiments skip testing (fast iteration). But that leads to the very opposite of "higher standards".