>Speaking as someone who's not the best at math, I find it easier to understand what a paper is saying after I run the code and see all the intermediate results

>Speaking as someone who's not the best at math, I find it easier to understand what a paper is saying after I run the code and see all the intermediate results. As long as you understand the paper after, that's okay. > When the code doesn't work, it takes me 20 times longer to digest a paper. What if the data isn't available? That's another issue. I see where you're coming from, but that's why the paper itself is the source of truth. Not the implementation. Another case, what if the implementation makes assumptions on the data? Or on the OS it's being run on?[0][1] > They could do with only uploading code -- to me it's the shortest and most effective way to express the ideas in the paper. In my opinion, no. The math and algorithm behind it is more important than an implementation and better for longevity. [0] https://science.slashdot.org/story/19/10/12/1926252/python-code-glitch-may-have-caused-errors-in-over-100-published-studies https://science.slashdot.org/story/19/10/12/1926252/python-c... [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/10/chemists-discover-cross-platform-python-scripts-not-so-cross-platform/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/10/chemi...