Are you being provocative? I would agree with this say 20 years ago. I do think devices like the iPhone really changed how people use software and the importance of good UX. I think it is mostly of reflection of funding models both in academia and in industry. We prioritize short term needs/goals and we also are terrible at estimating productivity gains or losses
So, obviously I'm being a bit provocative here. But I don't agree that it's mostly a matter of funding models. Today, writing good software isn't much more expensive than writing bad software, and in fact there are lots of people are doing it. Your statement that we prioritize short term needs and are terrible at estimating productivity gains is exactly why users like bad software.
Well in academia, funding agencies haven’t really been interested in supporting groups that want to develop good software frameworks/platforms. You could also argue, why do software developers reinvent the wheel and not reuse existing frameworks? What do you define as bad software?
The question about reusing existing frameworks is a good one. And "bad software" can have many potential meanings. I'm mostly responding to others who have claimed biology software is bad in different ways, and trying to explain why that might be.
Having been in meteorology, manufacturing, telecom, and biology, I have observed that the problem is universal. Subject matter experts and software developers not infrequently have different perspectives and different standards for 'good'.
Which is more likely? Biologists learning to think like coders? Or coders thinking like biologists. (years back i was briefly in finance, and the VP said it was much safer to teach accountants how to code, than the reverse. I think he was right). I agree, the context is important to sift.
Just leaving one word…. Spreadsheets
Are you being provocative? I would agree with this say 20 years ago. I do think devices like the iPhone really changed how people use software and the importance of good UX. I think it is mostly of reflection of funding models both in academia and in industry. We prioritize short term needs/goals and we also are terrible at estimating productivity gains or losses
So, obviously I'm being a bit provocative here. But I don't agree that it's mostly a matter of funding models. Today, writing good software isn't much more expensive than writing bad software, and in fact there are lots of people are doing it. Your statement that we prioritize short term needs and are terrible at estimating productivity gains is exactly why users like bad software.
Well in academia, funding agencies haven’t really been interested in supporting groups that want to develop good software frameworks/platforms. You could also argue, why do software developers reinvent the wheel and not reuse existing frameworks? What do you define as bad software?
The question about reusing existing frameworks is a good one. And "bad software" can have many potential meanings. I'm mostly responding to others who have claimed biology software is bad in different ways, and trying to explain why that might be.
Having been in meteorology, manufacturing, telecom, and biology, I have observed that the problem is universal. Subject matter experts and software developers not infrequently have different perspectives and different standards for 'good'.
Yeah, I don't think most of this is unique to biotech, but it's useful to think about the details in this specific context.
Which is more likely? Biologists learning to think like coders? Or coders thinking like biologists. (years back i was briefly in finance, and the VP said it was much safer to teach accountants how to code, than the reverse. I think he was right). I agree, the context is important to sift.