2 ms·

We need to go from it being special to open source code for a paper to making it almost seamless to interact with a presented idea, to try it in new contexts, t

We need to go from it being special to open source code for a paper to making it almost seamless to interact with a presented idea, to try it in new contexts, to build upon it, and, yes, to falsify it. When we introduce examples into an article we do so to make it easier to understand our message, but this opens us up to criticism of cherry picking our examples. We take a first step by allowing readers to choose from a set of examples, but real progress is open sourcing the code behind each diagram, and making it seamless for readers to run. If you primarily care about finding truth, then you don't only need to make reproduction and falsification possible, you need to make it easy.

Nzen 9y ago
While I agree in principle, in practice this implies a maintenance burden. Who should the burden fall on? Some researchers leave to industry positions. Some leave for family obligations. J Scoggins published an expert system wavefront scheduler [0][1] six years ago. Now, he's working on an expert system processor simulator [2]. Should requests on his earlier work take time from his current work? If he were to release a docker image, or whatever, of his setup while writing these tools is that enough? Obviously, there's a spot to shoot for between tossing binaries over the wall and a month long sabbatical to write documentation and example code for something no one may ever use. I have to ask, because I didn't pursue academia. Would you, as a grad student (per your github), reject or welcome a policy that insisted that the last week, or whatever, of the development window is to document the tools of the study? [0] https://github.com/DrItanium/WavefrontScheduling https://github.com/DrItanium/WavefrontScheduling [1] https://cpp-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=01CALS_ALMA71380013420002901&context=L&vid=01CALS_PUP&lang=en_US&search_scope=EVERYTHING&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=everything&query=any,contains,Scoggins,%20Joshua&sortby=rank&offset=0 https://cpp-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/ful... [2] https://github.com/DrItanium/maya https://github.com/DrItanium/maya

Nzen 9y ago

While I agree in principle, in practice this implies a maintenance burden. Who should the burden fall on? Some researchers leave to industry positions. Some leave for family obligations. J Scoggins published an expert system wavefront scheduler [0][1] six years ago. Now, he's working on an expert system processor simulator [2]. Should requests on his earlier work take time from his current work? If he were to release a docker image, or whatever, of his setup while writing these tools is that enough? Obviously, there's a spot to shoot for between tossing binaries over the wall and a month long sabbatical to write documentation and example code for something no one may ever use. I have to ask, because I didn't pursue academia. Would you, as a grad student (per your github), reject or welcome a policy that insisted that the last week, or whatever, of the development window is to document the tools of the study? [0] https://github.com/DrItanium/WavefrontScheduling https://github.com/DrItanium/WavefrontScheduling [1] https://cpp-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=01CALS_ALMA71380013420002901&context=L&vid=01CALS_PUP&lang=en_US&search_scope=EVERYTHING&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=everything&query=any,contains,Scoggins,%20Joshua&sortby=rank&offset=0 https://cpp-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/ful... [2] https://github.com/DrItanium/maya https://github.com/DrItanium/maya