People claiming that cos I said Matlab isn't the best to teach younglings that therefore I'm saying work done in Matlab isn't good are wrong.
Some did great science before #openscience movement started, it doesn't alter the fact we now have a better way.http://neuroplausible.com/matlab
-
-
:-). I remember being completely perplexed. Why waste someone's time with a suboptimal tool? Yes, it can be done, but why?pic.twitter.com/WRQzWpL06E
-
in general, it's good for a team to standardize on a small set of shared tools so that team members can understand each other's work product and (hopefully) so that the product remains useful after the person who created it has left and thus "COBOL programmer" is still a thing
-
agreed. the key phrase is 'a small set of shared tools', presumably the best for a group of tasks. I've never heard of matlab being considered even vaguely optimal for human online experiments. There are much better options, on many dimensions.
-
A lab is not just a team like in industry though. We do not have to comply with shareholders' requests and we certainly should (in theory) try to teach useful skills.
-
By useful I mean useful in more contexts than just the current lab set-up!
-
I would add that "useful" should move beyond the lab.
-
In an ideal world labs are not just there to create a "product". Science is not a product nor a service. It's something else. And through tax we fund it, not on the "open market", but through government grants primarily. Thinking of it as a business venture is confused IMHO.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
On a more serious note tho, Matlab is not