TL;DR: a counter-productive rant against software engineers, claiming that bad code from software engineers is worse than bad code from scientists.
Did you consider hiring an experienced software engineer as a lead?
Did you consider hiring an experienced software engineer as a lead?
As for hiring software devs, that's not going to change (in general, there are places where software devs write code used by scientists, but rarely are these codes themselves pushing research boundaries, it's code on top it that does) absent significant changes in funding structure and rules (which are typically a government/public service concern, and not up to researchers).
Disagree. Well, maybe still acceptable if the software is small / limited to a single paper. Having worked on a code base the people writing it learned programming on that job, guessing their intention is like archeology. And each iteration tended to add some complicated interdependence. Or like when int errorCode came from other, overlapping error ranges.
A part of the "new" code base is exactly as described by TFA. Including most interfaces having only one implementation. But while annoying, I am more able to work on it without things breaking...
My point about the rant being counter-productive is that the solution is to learn how to do the task better, not to blame people. Maybe the best way to do a task with a very low budget is to not do it at all.
I doubt this very much. Surely the vast majority of running code is some chunk of Chrome, Android, or the JVM ("billions of devices run Java...") or something. All those things were produced by software engineers with more than surface-level understanding.
Let's be honest: web browsers are really bad. Overly complicated machines made to print images and text on the screen. The web got sideways long ago, first because it was cool to add crap in websites, then because it made profit and allowed monopolies to make more profit by moving everything to damn webapps. And finally it allows companies to screw users by renting software on the damn cloud.
And they profit by making it as accessible as possible, such that everyone and their dog can produce a crappy webapp that will show their ads or track their users.
Webtech is part of what makes software really bad, even if it was created by good engineers. Because people don't want quality: they want cheap new crap.
But there is certainly more codebases out there running some python or js written by designers, data analysts etc then those produced and curated by software engineers.
But let's be fair: most scientists do bad research. Have you ever read papers in a field you know? 99% is bullshit. Not "non-conclusive good research", no. Downright useless, non-reproducible bullshit (or paraphrasing something that already exists, often making it worse). Just like software engineers, most scientists are juniors (we call them "PhD candidates") who get valued by publishing papers (any paper) in "recognized" journals (with some definition of "recognized"), by journals who make profit by accepting papers (any paper). Again not totally their fault: they have to produce recognized stuff in the time they are given, they don't have to produce good research.
I don't have a solution to those problems, of course: that's how the system works ("make profit"). I wish we tried to solve actual problems in a good way, but we don't. I don't think scientists are better than software engineers, though: we are all part of the problem. Less of all of us would make the world a better place (or would have prevented us from spoiling it, at least).
I just don't think my rant is worth publishing on HN.