> The solution already exists: skilled scientist hires grad student who's done some programming + some electronics classes. Happens everywhere already, works well.
I've never actually seen this work well. Scripting an existing solution, sure. But writing a new one from scratch... Most scientists I have met personally who code, write awful awful code. Sometimes they just lack the time to do something better (I'm as guilty of this as anyone), other times they're just not very good at it. And it's almost never maintainable: when they leave the project, you might as well re-write from scratch (a more cynical person would say that's by design, but I actually don't believe that). There are many, many exceptions to this, obviously, but as a rule...
I am optimistic though. It seems like things are changing for the better, slowly.
Edit: [1] That said, I've been trying to persuade a colleague to use version control for ages. I'm at a loss. Live and let live, I guess.
As for non-computer-savvy profs using grad students for programming: I see a lot of either LabView (for controlling experiments) or Python/Matlab in those cases, and it's often "write-only" code, but it mostly gets the job done. I'm also optimistic, but there are too few people working on and caring about the software carpentry we need to back modern svience in a good way.
The solution already exists: skilled scientist hires grad student who's done some programming + some electronics classes. Happens everywhere already, works well.
Talking about UI and UX as a problem with scientific codes makes me giggle though. We have much bigger issues with reproducibility, providence, mandating codes be open source, even getting people to use a version control system, that we need to fix first.