After building scientific software, I’ve learned innovation happens at the chemistry–code boundary: docs and UX matter as much as algorithms; tight feedback with scientists drives usefulness; open source + reproducibility create momentum. The goal isn’t perfect code—it’s advancing discovery. Anyone else balancing UX with scientific rigor? 🧪💻
#scicomm #openscience #compchem #researchsoftware
Discussion
Loading...
Post
@baam93 I wouldn't say "balancing" but "alternating". In a discovery phase, you want short feedback loops. Scientific rigor comes in afterwards, when you synthesize your discoveries into conclusions.
@baam93 Likewise, "perfect code" is an ideal, not a realistic goal. If only because no two people agree on what would make code perfect. On the other hand, knowing what your code is worth, in terms of model quality, software engineering standards, etc., is important when you get to the "scientific rigor" phase.
Put differently: it's OK to use shabby code as long as you are aware of it (and say so).
Open Science
We are a network of scientists, developers and organizations building the next generation of digital spaces for open science.
Automatic federation enabled