News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi... by jwatte on Sunday August 28, 2016 @02:36PM (#12377786)
The GoF book is a dictionary. When it came out, we all got names for patterns we use when appropriate. The thing that must die is over-reliance on formalisms where they don't add value. (Because there absolutely are places where they do.)

Having the taste to use the right approach for each job is what sets experience apart!

Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi... by rattray on Sunday August 28, 2016 @05:54PM (#12378722)
Sorry, what is the GoF book?
Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi... by detaro on Sunday August 28, 2016 @05:57PM (#12378735)
Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software, whose four authors are sometimes called the Gang of Four (GoF). It established a vocabulary of common patterns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Patterns

Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi... by rattray on Sunday August 28, 2016 @06:14PM (#12378796)
Thanks very much!