Science needs more research software engineers

Re:Science needs more research software engineers by kergonath on Wednesday June 01, 2022 @02:31AM (#31578843)

Yeah. Considering how much time we spend developing and using the damn things, we’ll call them the way we like, thank you very much. We don’t really need condescending software types to just come and explain to us how we’re saying it wrong. That is particularly rich, considering the tendency of CS people to cargo cult and borrow physical terms without understanding them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science needs more research software engineers by pyb on Wednesday June 01, 2022 @03:31AM (#31579123)

Always annoying to hear machine learning people speak of "tensors"...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science needs more research software engineers by cozzyd on Wednesday June 01, 2022 @03:52AM (#31579261)

I'm still waiting for std::pseudovector<T>

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science needs more research software engineers by peterhalburt33 on Thursday June 02, 2022 @12:00AM (#31591172)

It aggravates me too, however, considering that the definition of a tensor according to mathematicians is an element of the tensor product of two vector spaces (or whatever other objects you can tensor together), and according to physicists would be an object which transforms like a tensor, I’m somewhat sympathetic. Neither definition sheds any light on what a tensor is to anyone who doesn’t already understand what a tensor is, and I’m convinced that the moment one understands what tensors are they lose the ability to explain what tensors are.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science needs more research software engineers by mikebenfield on Friday June 03, 2022 @02:04AM (#31604793)

I have an academic mathematics background and I'm perfectly OK with this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science needs more research software engineers by cozzyd on Wednesday June 01, 2022 @03:21AM (#31579072)

Yes, please stop naming your software projects after elementary particles :).

[ Parent | on HN ]