3 ms·
> But it would be beneficial for science if code was treated as important as the paper itself. One could argue that it isn't. In science, the concept is usuall
by Derbasti 13y ago
> But it would be beneficial for science if code was treated as important as the paper itself.
One could argue that it isn't. In science, the concept is usually more important than the implementation.
But I totally agree. Scientific code tends to be awful and I wish I knew what to do about that.
- kyzyl 13y agoThat is one point of view. Another is that the entire scientific community is entitled to peer review your work, and you should enable them to. Not just your referees, who will likely not compile and test your code, anyhow. The concept may be the most important thing, but what good is a paper asserting some new concept if everyone can't verify it? I think it is the approach that folks like Fernando Perez at ipython are pushing with their html notebooks. Reproducible, comprehensible science.
- Derbasti 13y agoI LOVE ipython and its notebook! It is seriously one of the best things to happen in the last few years for scientific computation and teaching! So amazing!