Not sure what to make of all this Jon I am to believe that scientists prefer to mull over source code rather than pseudo code and mathematical descriptions. Anyone that knows just a little about software development would know that source code is the last thing that one wants to see. How many has deciphered the source code of an FFT routine, how many would want to. The language of maths has evolved over the centuries and computer code whether it be Fortran or c++ is simply not adequate for describing complex algorithms.
There's a hidden agenda here and those pushing it should have the fortitude to come clean about their motives; that is that scientists would like software for free. This word 'free' is an ugly word and it is in fact the reason why software in this field is so bad. Governments/institutes do not pay scientists to develop software except for short term projects that typically amounts to a gross waste of tax payer's money. Very complex programs such as Axiom, Reduce, Maple and Mathematica require teams of dedicated mathematicians and code writers looking after it. Maple and Mathematica are commercial, Reduce is open source and it charges 700 pounds stating that this is necessary for its continued development. Axiom is a commercial failure by IBM and has been placed on the open source scrap heap, last I checked it's still just sitting there. Thus if you want to destroy commercial entities such as Maple and Mathematica then you would subjecting science to second rate software. How many people check that the source code of these programs spew out the correct results. Thus this idea of source code must be made available is a charade. It would mean that developments in programs like GSAS/TOPAS could not be reported as the source code is not available. Not sure about the present status of GSAS source code but it was not available in the past. Even if governments were to pay for the development of programs such as GSAS then it is still most certainly not free. There are three options, 1) Governments/institutes fund software development, 2) Scientists band together to write open source code or 3) software is paid for on a commercial basis. Option (1) probably won't happen for political reasons, option (2) has worked in other fields but doubtful in this field for lack of expertise and option (3) already exists. What is interesting is the reason why software is not funded. In my opinion it is not funded because everyone thinks that software should be free not bothering where it comes from and most certainly not knowing that computer science is as difficult a field as science and asking Mr or Mrs Blogs to write a program without being educated in the area won't work. The bottom line of all this is that it must not be a prerequisite that source code be made available in reporting algorithmic developments. Anyone that states otherwise is being disingenuous - Journals like Nature or otherwise will most certainly be given a miss by me in regards to publishing algorithmic developments. Best regards Alan Coelho -----Original Message----- From: Jon Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 24 March 2007 6:09 AM To: rietveld_l@ill.fr Subject: [Fwd: [ccp4bb] Nature policy update regarding source code] Hi Everyone; Just in case you don't follow ccp4bb or nature methods: http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v4/n3/full/nmeth0307-189.html > I thought that some of you might be interested that the journal Nature > has clarified the publication requirements regarding source code > accessibility. It is likely that some of you deserve congrats > for this. Cheers! > > http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v4/n3/full/nmeth0307-189.html > > Although there are still some small problems, I think that this is a > big step forward, and certainly an interesting read, if you are > interested in FOSS and science. > > Regards, > Michael L. Love Ph.D > Department of Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry > School of Medicine > Johns Hopkins University > 725 N. Wolfe Street > Room 608B WBSB > Baltimore MD 21205-2185 > > Interoffice Mail: 608B WBSB, SoM > > office: 410-614-2267 > lab: 410-614-3179 > fax: 410-502-6910 > cell: 443-824-3451 > http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ > > > > -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C++++ UBULI++++$ P+ L+++(++++) E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
