I'm not treating anything, it's because coding isn't my job. The job of a scientist is to do research, and coding is nothing more than a tool towards that goal.
>your code, on which your results rely, is too sloppy for anyone else to understand...then you've not proven correctness at all
No, my results rely on my experimental methods, my mathematical models, and my code. Correctness can be proven in spite of sloppy code. Would you dispute a claim on the basis that calculations done on a calculator can't be seen by others?
Furthermore, the burden of proof after peer review in academia is on the person disproving in it. If my code is wrong at a basic level, what good does it do for anyone? If someone is to disprove my paper, they should reimplement the code in order to account for errors.
Does this excuse spaghetti level code that often accompanies papers? Of course not. Scientists have a lot to learn from software engineering about proper programming skills, but programming is simply another tool in the repertoire, not something that should be put on a pedestal.
> coding is nothing more than a tool towards that goal.
That's an important idiom that most devs need to understand at some points in their career, but don't. It's not even exclusive to business goals, but sanity and complexity ones as well..
I'm not treating anything, it's because coding isn't my job. The job of a scientist is to do research, and coding is nothing more than a tool towards that goal.
>your code, on which your results rely, is too sloppy for anyone else to understand...then you've not proven correctness at all
No, my results rely on my experimental methods, my mathematical models, and my code. Correctness can be proven in spite of sloppy code. Would you dispute a claim on the basis that calculations done on a calculator can't be seen by others?
Furthermore, the burden of proof after peer review in academia is on the person disproving in it. If my code is wrong at a basic level, what good does it do for anyone? If someone is to disprove my paper, they should reimplement the code in order to account for errors.
Does this excuse spaghetti level code that often accompanies papers? Of course not. Scientists have a lot to learn from software engineering about proper programming skills, but programming is simply another tool in the repertoire, not something that should be put on a pedestal.