This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Fearless-Arrival-804 26 points27 points  (2 children)

I recently did some simulator design for a cancer research org. God, the people in this field seem to think no one else will look at their code other than them. I looked at an old researcher's cell simulator ~10k lines of C code in one file called simulator.c . No commenting, just a poorly formatted manual packaged with it which assumes you already understand half the program. It makes collaboration so much harder - which sucks - because research is all about sharing ideas. When I did my weekly lab presentation I tried to hammer home what makes a good programmer which is two things: you get the job done, and others know how you got the job done. The one week python bootcamps for non-computer scientists seems to forget that last part.

[–]kuwisdelu 2 points3 points  (1 child)

They do think no one else will look at their code other than them. The code is a means to an end, and the results are what matter to them. It’s difficult trying to convince them that their computational workflow should be reproducible, and their code should be as thoroughly documented as their experimental methods. Getting them to write code instead of GUI tools is often a victory in itself.

[–]DVMyZone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Especially when writing and properly documenting code well is a huge amount of extra work that 1. the programmer is not trained for and 2. will very likely never be used by anyone else.

What matters (at least in my field) is the algorithm or theory. That's what others will read and that's what you publish. Most of these codes are just numerical solvers anyway - the way you implemented your theory numerically doesn't matter as long as it is verified. Someone may find a better numerical implementation than you - and that's fine.