It's surprising there is no comment about wrong scientific code: code which apparently does one thing, but actually doesn't, and may produce harmful results.
(By "bad" code, I understand code which doesn't meet best practices)
It's very easy to accidentally produce wrong scientific code, partly since scientists are doing research. They use novel mathematical algorithms to solve hard problems, and it's not typically obvious what output is expected. It's not CRUD.
In this sense, the sins of the scientific programmer might actually be important - fragile code which crashes when something is wrong could be considered good - this may help to avoid publishing wrong code.
(By "bad" code, I understand code which doesn't meet best practices)
It's very easy to accidentally produce wrong scientific code, partly since scientists are doing research. They use novel mathematical algorithms to solve hard problems, and it's not typically obvious what output is expected. It's not CRUD.
In this sense, the sins of the scientific programmer might actually be important - fragile code which crashes when something is wrong could be considered good - this may help to avoid publishing wrong code.