Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practices” (2014)

Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi... by collyw on Sunday August 28, 2016 @01:57PM (#12377552)

I saw a really good / fun post about writing a Hello World app by years of experience.

The first example was

print "Hello world!".

It gradually started adding functions, inheritance and other features with each year of experience.Then after ten years it went back to print "Hello World".

Thats been the reality for me. Understand the complex features of a language, but more importantly learn when they are appropriate.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi... by mamon on Sunday August 28, 2016 @01:59PM (#12377558)

Are you refering to this? :)

http://www.connexin.net/computer-software-humor-jokes/progra...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi... by collyw on Sunday August 28, 2016 @02:02PM (#12377574)

Almost. I have tried to find it a few times but never been able to since I first stumbled upon it. The funniest part was the end result (the most experienced programmer) being exactly the same as the first - which this version is missing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi... by SmurfJuggler on Sunday August 28, 2016 @02:36PM (#12377781)

https://medium.com/@webseanhickey/the-evolution-of-a-softwar...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi... by collyw on Monday August 29, 2016 @02:43AM (#12380402)

Yes, thats the one!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi... by prance on Tuesday August 30, 2016 @02:06PM (#12392408)

Actually it's not exactly the same: he added a README.

[ Parent | on HN ]