Interesting article by Andrew Jones entitled Are we taking supercomputing code seriously?:

Part of the problem is that in their rush to do science, scientists fail to spot the software for what it is: the analogue of the experimental instrument. Consequently, it needs to be treated with the same respect that a physical experiment would receive.

Any reputable physical experiment would ensure the instruments are appropriate to the job and have been tested. They would be checked for known error behaviour in the parameter regions of study, and chosen for their ability to give a satisfactory result within a useful timeframe and budget. Those same principles should apply to a software model.

1 Comment

  1. Pingback: Climate Science is an Experimental Science | Serendipity

  2. From the linked article:

    Is it right that much of the supercomputing code driving scientific research and engineering design is written by people who are not software professionals[?]

    Yes. The domain specific knowledge is primary, good software carpentry on the part of scientific computing developers is sufficient.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *