> Most science is based on physical observation of the experiment the code is just a offshoot of the test equipment. Even if we accept this as true, I don't se

> Most science is based on physical observation of the experiment the code is just a offshoot of the test equipment. Even if we accept this as true, I don't see why it's an argument against publishing code for that science which does directly depend on the simulations you run. > you would want to repeat the experiment and implement ones own version of the maths behind it. That's a good point, but only valid if the exact mathematics and methods are clearly explained elsewhere. But as the article states, usually there's ambiguity. And if I try to reproduce your simulation and get different results, it's very difficult for me to get enough confidence to call you out on it (perhaps I'm the one who screwed up). If I find a bug in your code, it's easy.