3 ms·
I think it's unfair to expect from anyone to maintain code forever when the code rot is completely beyond your control, let alone to expect this from scientists
by jonathanstrange 6y ago
I think it's unfair to expect from anyone to maintain code forever when the code rot is completely beyond your control, let alone to expect this from scientists who have better things to do. Anything with a GUI is bound to self-destruct, for example, and it's not the programmer's fault. Blame the OS makers and framework/3rd party library suppliers.
The damage can be limited by choosing a programming language that provides good long compatibility. Languages like ANSI C, Ada, CommonLisp, and Fortran fit the bill. There are many more. Heck, you could use Chipmunk Basic. Anything fancy and trendy will stop working soon, though, sometimes even within a year.
- jnxx 6y ago> CommonLisp Common Lisp has fantastic long-term stability. I think that deserves more recognition, as Common Lisp is often almost as fast as C, but is (by default) not riddled with undefined behavior. It would be superb if Rust could take C's space in computational science and libraries.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]