
Measuring Reproducibility in Computer Systems Research [pdf] - hrasyid
http://reproducibility.cs.arizona.edu/tr.pdf
======
nullpunkt
The problem with code...is that there is such a big overhead between
thinking/designing a solution and actually implementing it in code - as in
unneeded trouble with coding, syntax, compilation, errors....and so on, and so
on - as such, coding and source code per se are widely perceived as Work
Produced, not easily sharable for Free.

Code, globally, needs to be abstracted, to the point that it can be far more
damn simple to Write something and Execute it without the troubles of having
to know libraries, syntax, language intricacies, and so on and so forth. There
is such an absurd obsession with Coding in its current state that it makes it
even harder to Change how code is written, to make it easier per se, to
Abstract it even more whilst retaining flexibility and power - the less
symbols the better, the less actual letters in code the better, the more
grouping of code the better, the more Actual reuse of it the better.

Take Java, for example. It is widely the most popular complete Abomination of
the computer science world. It's just obscenely hideous - having to write so
many letters and words and syntax only to fill a flawed theory and logic
behind it, it's just -Inefficient-.

Abstracting the way Code is and is written will be an actual evolution of
computer science as a whole - reuse of code, ease of writing, easier sharing,
less headaches, better products, more Meaningful time spent on code. Making
people 'love' the current way of writing it just to turn them into code
monkeys one day is just horrible and exploitative.

~~~
castle-bravo
Programming is hard, but progress is being made. For example: I think Haskell
is an order of magnitude easier to write than C++. It seems to me that
programming languages are evolving to give programmers access to ever higher
levels of abstraction.

The holy grail, I think, would be a kind of unification of programming
language and mathematical notation, the kind of language in which the models
of the Prime Radiant (fom Isaac Asimov's Foundation series) would be
expressed. So far, I haven't seen a language that comes close to this ideal,
but I think there are lots of people who have a similar vision and have tried
to approach it in various ways. Haskell is capable of posessing some small
fraction of the terseness and beauty of mathematical expressions, Gerald J
Sussman's work in Scheme captures symbolic mathematics and physics beautifully
and succinctly, and Stephen Wolfram has elegantly organized an incredible
volume of mathematical knowlege in his Mathematica package.

I don't think we can completely eliminate the impedance mismatch between human
creativity and computation, but certainly we're working on narrowing that
chasm. I can't offer you any suggestions, but if you feel very passionate
about it, there may be a project (possibly a thesis project) out there that
you could get involved in.

------
emeryberger
Highly relevant: [http://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Memos/Examining-
Reproducibility/](http://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Memos/Examining-Reproducibility/)

------
lwhsiao
Related:

Efforts in reproducing networking research is a core of one of Stanford's
networking classes [1], where students make blog posts about their efforts
[2].

\---

[1] [https://ccronline.sigcomm.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/05/acm...](https://ccronline.sigcomm.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/05/acmdl17-97.pdf)

[2]
[https://reproducingnetworkresearch.wordpress.com/](https://reproducingnetworkresearch.wordpress.com/)

------
lainon
Related:
[http://reproducibility.cs.arizona.edu/v2/RepeatabilityTR.pdf](http://reproducibility.cs.arizona.edu/v2/RepeatabilityTR.pdf)

