> A software developer will care more about maintainability and end-user experience than a scientific coder, who will likely prize flexibility and control instead. Importantly, this means that programming patterns and norms that work for one may not work for the other — exhortations to keep code simple, to remove cruft, to limit the number of parameters and settings, might actually interfere with the intended applications of a scientific code for example.
Granted, but when publishing, these need to be primary concerns. Source code, then, is a communications medium.
Many famous scientists like Einstein and Feynman would do their work in their heads, not by filling blackboards with equations. When they needed to publish, they'd write down equations because that is the medium of communications. You make it as simple as possible, so people can follow you. E=mc^2 is brilliant because it is so simple. Maxwell's equations got a lot more traction once they were simplified down to just 4.
Scientists using computers for research or analysis are welcome to use any messy code they want, but if they wish for others to follow their work, they need to clean it up to the standards of the industry.
It was beat into my head from a young age that research is only part of being a scientist. You also need to be able to communicate your ideas -- hence all of the writing class requirements. Scientists need to take this to heart, and if they wish to publish in terms of source code, to write source code that others can read.
When even professionals in the field have trouble verifying your work, you've got a problem. It's been a while since I worked in scientific computing, but I never saw a single published paper with a program where the program even matched the description in the paper it was attached to.
Granted, but when publishing, these need to be primary concerns. Source code, then, is a communications medium.
Many famous scientists like Einstein and Feynman would do their work in their heads, not by filling blackboards with equations. When they needed to publish, they'd write down equations because that is the medium of communications. You make it as simple as possible, so people can follow you. E=mc^2 is brilliant because it is so simple. Maxwell's equations got a lot more traction once they were simplified down to just 4.
Scientists using computers for research or analysis are welcome to use any messy code they want, but if they wish for others to follow their work, they need to clean it up to the standards of the industry.
It was beat into my head from a young age that research is only part of being a scientist. You also need to be able to communicate your ideas -- hence all of the writing class requirements. Scientists need to take this to heart, and if they wish to publish in terms of source code, to write source code that others can read.
When even professionals in the field have trouble verifying your work, you've got a problem. It's been a while since I worked in scientific computing, but I never saw a single published paper with a program where the program even matched the description in the paper it was attached to.