Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Apr 2012 02:08 UTC
In the News "Modern science relies upon researchers sharing their work so that their peers can check and verify success or failure. But most scientists still don't share one crucial piece of information - the source codes of the computer programs driving much of today's scientific progress." Pretty crazy this isn't the norm yet.
Permalink for comment 514309
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Yes and no
by kwan_e on Mon 16th Apr 2012 06:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Yes and no"
Member since:

Instead of that, they should write their own implementation with its own set of bugs... right?

Yes. It's another way to check that the theories in the original code are correctly implemented.

Say you want to write some code to verify the Hockey Stick Graph is correct. If you use the original source code, chances are, you're not going to spot all the bugs in the implementation and you'll likely end up with the same graph, which does not fulfil the goal of independent verification.

We're talking scientific formulae, not a Linux desktop environment here. The most important thing is the data.

Instead of fixing the bugs in the original implementation and bringing improvements...

The only useful improvements for scientific research are corrections to formulae and theories. That can be done outside of code, and probably better served by being outside of code.

Do you seriously think it is a good idea for logic bugs to propagate through hundreds of research projects derived from the same code?

Reply Parent Score: 3