Re:How Lisp-family languages facilitate building bioinformat...
by GFK_of_xmaspast on Monday January 09, 2017 @11:42AM
(#13357601)
> who cares if the code is a write-only mess as long as it does the one job after which no one will care about it anyway
This is exactly the kind of attitude that projects like 'Software Carpentry' (https://software-carpentry.org) are pushing back against.
Re:How Lisp-family languages facilitate building bioinformat...
by hatmatrix on Monday January 09, 2017 @08:46AM
(#13356244)
What about Bioconductor and Openbabel/Pybel?
Re:How Lisp-family languages facilitate building bioinformat...
by throwanem on Monday January 09, 2017 @09:01AM
(#13356319)
R and especially Python didn't see a lot of use where I was; the former was regarded mainly as a chart generator, while the latter had one diehard fan (an engineer like me, not an investigator) and no further uptake. It has been a few years since I was there, though, and I haven't kept closely in touch, so perhaps things have changed in the interim.
So, exactly like bioinformatics, then. Trivial tasks are supported by packages of libraries like BioPerl, but all the original research is sui generis, with the attitude in general being that each problem is unique and only results get published, so who cares if the code is a write-only mess as long as it does the one job after which no one will care about it anyway. In such an environment, the "Lisp Curse" already exists anyway, so why not get the benefit of a more powerful and expressive language when you're already paying its cost?
(Granted, Lisp for bioinformatics is never going to become a generally accepted thing. But if you're not releasing code anyway, no one cares what language you write it in...)