3 ms·
Not to be harsh, but the code I've seen taken from "scientific" papers were the worst code I've ever seen. One function of a couple of thousand lines in C++ (Bu
by phzbOx 15y ago
Not to be harsh, but the code I've seen taken from "scientific" papers were the worst code I've ever seen. One function of a couple of thousand lines in C++ (But using a mix of C and C++ functions) using variables named with 1 or 2 letters.. without comments, gasp.. I still do nightmare about that (I had to refactor that code.)
But I do agree with Jacques that I so much prefer a graph with a summary than a couple pages of unreadable mathematical expression. A high-level pseudocode of the general idea might also be great. Sometime, I feel like the paper wasn't written for people to understand.. but as a way to make it seem difficult. It's not rare that I talk with an author of a scientific paper and can easily summarize an entire paragraph with a couple of simple sentences..
- xyzzyz 15y agoOf course it wasn't written for people to understand -- it was written for their colleagues in their field, and all they care about are these pages unreadable mathematical expressions. It's not rare that I talk with an author of a scientific paper and can easily summarize an entire paragraph with a couple of simple sentences.. And when I talk about math with my friends over a lunch, much, much more information can be conveyed than by spending the same amount of time on reading papers. However, it does not prove that papers are written in unintelligible way, only that human-to-human communication is much more effective than paper-to-human.