My post is not so much about the writing (tho often poor) but about incomprehensible methods
notwithstanding, I completely agree with you that it's very hard to parse for non experts in exactly those methods.
-
-
agreed methods could be better written, but if the code is open (and well documented), then surely there's no problem?
-
it's a huge problem to expect people to have to run your code to understand /trust your analysis in my opinion
-
open code is great but not a replacement to good explanation/writing
-
agreed. But we all have limitations. I'm just saying that those limitations can be mitigated by making code open
-
not convinced. I actually wrote a paper on exactly why that's the worst idea
-
with a co author who's very thoughtful with respect to this and not on twitter the short version is that code can't be in
-
lieu of specification for a model or a theory because code is not the central scientific thing being discussed the model
-
is so that must be specified in the paper.
- 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.
