3 ms·
Yes. 110% attributed to learning about unit-tests and gems/CPAN in grad school. IMO there is a big fallacy about the "just get it to work" approach. Most seri
by xipho 6y ago
Yes. 110% attributed to learning about unit-tests and gems/CPAN in grad school.
IMO there is a big fallacy about the "just get it to work" approach. Most serious scientific code, i.e. supporting months-years of research, is used and modified a lot. It's also not really one-off, it's a core part of a dissertation, or research program, if it fails- you do. I'd argue that (and I found that), using unit-tests, a deployment strategy, etc. ultimately allowed me to do more, and better science because in the long run I didn't spend as much time figuring out why my code didn't run when I tweaked stuff. This is really liberating stuff. I suspect this is all obvious to those who have gone down that path.
Frankly, every reasonably tricky problem benefits from unit-tests as well for another reason. Don't know how to code it, but know the answer? Assert lots of stuff, not just one at a time red-green style. Then code, and see what happens. So powerful for scientific approaches.
- xorfish 6y agoAnd bugs can have quite big implications: https://smw.ch/article/doi/smw.2020.20336 https://smw.ch/article/doi/smw.2020.20336