3 ms·
> Funding dictates this is impossible, so they make do. Put another way: software quality is not valued in academia. Let’s say the code in question was in grea
by pbourke 6y ago
> Funding dictates this is impossible, so they make do.
Put another way: software quality is not valued in academia. Let’s say the code in question was in great shape. Would it have mattered at all in the trajectory of anyone’s career? No. This is probably the one academic code base in a million that has received any negative reputational hit due to its quality.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago> software quality is not valued in academia. And in general, it shouldn't. Code written by scientists is almost always throwaway prototypes. So it absolutely doesn't matter how decoupled, or easy to extend it is. The only aspect of quality that matters here is the simplicity, in the sense "it obviously has no bugs" (and related practices like testing). This is something that could be taught, but I think it should be also addressed from the other end of the spectrum - more pressure put on verification and reproducibility of results.
- mcv 6y agoIt doesn't have to be decoupled or easy to extend, but it should be readable enough to ensure it does what it's supposed to, and well-tested enough to verify it does what it's supposed to.
- kwhitefoot 6y agoI think Blaise Pascal's (or whoever really said it) remark is apposite here: If I Had More Time, I Would Have Written a Shorter Letter https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/