TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The Recomputation Manifesto

110 点作者 ajdecon将近 12 年前

10 条评论

pnathan将近 12 年前
Going to bang a small drum here and proclaim:<p>When doing science, don&#x27;t use a tech stack that will be obselete next year or in 3 years. Use something that will be AROUND; something that is well defined, something that other people can use down the road on a different system.<p>Virtual machines are &quot;okay&quot;. Running them requires having the hypervisor working correctly and - hopefully - the original architecture supported.<p>Personally, I used Common Lisp for my Master&#x27;s work. Other examples of tech stacks that are very stable are C, C++, and Fortran.
评论 #6050767 未加载
评论 #6052723 未加载
评论 #6050466 未加载
评论 #6050364 未加载
评论 #6052593 未加载
评论 #6050700 未加载
评论 #6050460 未加载
turingfan将近 12 年前
Hi, this is Ian Gent, author of the Recomputation Manifesto.<p>Many thanks for all the comments.<p>If anybody wants to get in touch to work in any way on recomputation, please do! You can find me very easily on google.<p>Special thanks to @lifebeyondfife, I worked out who you are and you were a pleasure to supervise too. Hope all is going well.
评论 #6051324 未加载
评论 #6052186 未加载
评论 #6051500 未加载
评论 #6051360 未加载
tigroferoce将近 12 年前
TL;DR: any computer science paper that presents practical work without disclosing source code should not be accepted to any scientific conference or journal.<p>Agree on all. I&#x27;ve been few years in research in computer security before quitting for industry. I must report that so many papers that presents some kind of algorithms (I would say the majority) very rarely also provides the source code of the implementation. I have always thought and advocated for that any computer science paper that presents practical work without disclosing source code should not be accepted to any scientific conference or journal.<p>I know (because I did many times) that opening the source takes an incredible amount of time, but it is mandatory for being capable of &#x27;standing on the shoulders of giants&#x27;. Writing code and keeping private in research is just a non sense.
评论 #6050737 未加载
ics将近 12 年前
For those who may skim the article without reading the actual manifesto, the closing paragraph is rather keen:<p>&gt; A manifesto is a call that people reading it should vote for your point of view. Don’t vote with a signature or a petition. Vote by making your computational experiments recomputable. Do it at <a href="http://recomputation.org" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;recomputation.org</a>, or at your own web site, or at another repository. But make your experiments recomputable.<p>Full manifesto linked from the article: <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.3674v1.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;1304.3674v1.pdf</a><p>Before even reading the article I was thinking to myself &quot;gee, this might actually be one of the best use cases I&#x27;ve heard for vagrant&#x2F;etc&quot;. Turns out that&#x27;s exactly what this is :)
jgrahamc将近 12 年前
This is great. I see that the first reference made in the paper is to my joint paper in Nature arguing for release of source code. Even that seems like a radical step too far to some scientists, goodness knows what they&#x27;d think about this, but it&#x27;s a great idea.
评论 #6051649 未加载
评论 #6051928 未加载
dasmoth将近 12 年前
I hope &quot;Recomputability&quot; emerges as a distinct term.<p>At least in the biological sciences, I&#x27;m seeing the term &quot;reproducibility&quot; used a lot where the meaning is much closer to &quot;recomputability&quot;, i.e. &quot;you can repeat the exact computational steps we performed&quot; -- without necessarily saying much about either the lab-work and&#x2F;or sample-collection parts of the project, or the possibility of performing similar analyses using different tools&#x2F;platforms.<p>(I&#x27;d also like to see a bit more recognition of the importance of full reproduction -- i.e. someone starts with the same hypothesis or idea and does their <i>own</i> experiment -- in modern science).
评论 #6051009 未加载
评论 #6052646 未加载
lifeisstillgood将近 12 年前
This is fantastic - and a serious challenge.<p>Recomuputability is to all intents and purposes the goal of devops and testing. And we are stumbling around at the edges of proving one environment it same as another.<p>This is one to watch - hell one to join in
评论 #6050907 未加载
kephra将近 12 年前
imho, he is missing the most important point, and walking in the wrong direction instead.<p>He is true, that science requires recomputation, the ability to verify or falsify results. But recomputation in science is more then just the ability to run the black magic box again. A black magic box makes it worse, because the box might change and fail over time, and its black magic VM. Recomputation requires source code, that is human readable.<p>So my suggestion instead is to use a combination of Gentoo and Linux Containers instead. Gentoo enforces that everything on the machine has its source code that did run through the compiler, and Linux Containers encapsulate the project in a way, that a simple backup can preserve it.<p><i>well</i> I normally prefer Debian because of lower maintenance cost. But Gentoo could play out its strength in this edge case.
评论 #6051147 未加载
justincormack将近 12 年前
A VM is fine but at least it should be minimal so you can see what of the 400MB matters. A minimal environment (boot to TeX? Would be good).
评论 #6051202 未加载
xfax将近 12 年前
This should apply equally to papers in Economics as well. The R&amp;R Excel debacle was embarrassing.