TITLE: Software is a Means of Communication, Just Like a Research Paper
AUTHOR: Eugene Wallingford
DATE: April 30, 2015  6:00 PM
DESC: 
-----
BODY:
I can't let
<A HREF="http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/blog/archives/monthly/2015-04.html#e2015-04-29T13_52_58.htm">
   my previous post</A>
be my only comment on
<A HREF="https://khinsen.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/software-in-scientific-research/">
   Software in Scientific Research</A>.
Hinsen's bigger point is worth a post of its own.

<BLOCKQUOTE><EM>
 Software is a means of communication, just like papers or textbooks.
</EM></BLOCKQUOTE>

... much like the math that appears in a paper or a textbook -- except
that, done properly, a computer program runs and provides a dynamic
demonstration of an idea.

<BLOCKQUOTE><EM>
 The main questions asked about scientific software [qua software]
 are "What does it do?" and "How efficient is it?"  When considering
 software as a means of communication, we would ask questions such
 as "Is it well-written, clear, elegant?", "How general is the
 formulation?", or "Can I use it as the basis for developing new
 science?".
</EM></BLOCKQUOTE>

This shift requires a different level of understanding of programs
and programming than many scientists (and other people who do not
program for a living) have.  But it is a shift that needs to take
place, so we should so all we can to help scientists and others
become more fluent.  (Hey to
<A HREF="https://software-carpentry.org">
   Software Carpentry</A>
and like-minded efforts.)

We take for granted that all researchers are responsible for being
able to produce and, more importantly, understand the other essential
parts of scientific communication:

<BLOCKQUOTE><EM>
 We actually accept as normal that the scientific contents of
 software, i.e., the models implemented by it, are understandable
 only to software specialists, meaning that for the majority of users,
 the software is just a black box.  Could you imagine this for a paper?
 "This paper is very obscure, but the people who wrote it are very
 smart, so let's trust them and base our research on their conclusions."
 Did you ever hear such a claim?  Not me.
</EM></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a big part of the challenge we face in getting faculty across
the university to see the vital role that computing should play in
modern education -- as well as the roles it should <EM>not</EM> play.
The same is true in the broader culture.  We'll see if efforts such
as <TT>code.org</TT> can make a dent in this challenge.
-----