2020
DOI: 10.1109/ms.2019.2899838
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Naming the Pain in Developing Scientific Software

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0
2

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
9
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Second, regarding Culture , the vast majority of respondents indicated that the level of funding for research software was “insufficient and creates barriers to their work”. A wide-scale survey providing further strong evidence for the utility of theory-software translation research explicitly examined problems within research software engineering, providing a taxonomy of ‘pains’ covering technical, scientific and social issues 26 . This work highlights that many common software engineering challenges, such as requirements gathering, communication difficulties and debugging, are particularly challenging— and often qualitatively different—within science, due to the nature of the research process, and the environment in which the work is conducted.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, regarding Culture , the vast majority of respondents indicated that the level of funding for research software was “insufficient and creates barriers to their work”. A wide-scale survey providing further strong evidence for the utility of theory-software translation research explicitly examined problems within research software engineering, providing a taxonomy of ‘pains’ covering technical, scientific and social issues 26 . This work highlights that many common software engineering challenges, such as requirements gathering, communication difficulties and debugging, are particularly challenging— and often qualitatively different—within science, due to the nature of the research process, and the environment in which the work is conducted.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most scientists lack formal training in software development and tend not to know about tools and practices that could increase their productivity (Kelly, 2007;Basili et al, 2008;Faulk et al, 2009;Hannay et al, 2009;Hwang et al, 2017;AlNoamany and Borghi, 2018;Pinto et al, 2018;Kellogg et al, 2018). Incentives also play a role: the academic system rewards publication of new results rather than production of high-quality, reusable software (though credit mechanisms for software are now starting to emerge) (LeVeque, 2009;Howison and Herbsleb, 2011;Morin et al, 2012;Turk, 2013;Ahalt et al, 2014;Poisot, 2015;Hwang et al, 2017;Wiese et al, 2019). The combination of incentive structure and lack of training in best practices can lead to inflexible, hard-to-maintain software Johanson and Hasselbring, 2018).…”
Section: Growing Painsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most scientists lack formal training in software development, and tend not to know about tools and practices that could increase their productivity (Kelly, 2007;Basili et al, 2008;Faulk et al, 2009;Hannay et al, 2009;Hwang et al, 2017;AlNoamany and Borghi, 2018;Pinto et al, 2018;Kellogg et al, 2018). Incentives also play a role: the academic system rewards publication of new results rather than production of high-quality, reusable software (though credit mechanisms for software are now starting to emerge) (LeVeque, 2009;Howison and Herbsleb, 2011;Morin et al, 2012;Turk, 2013;Ahalt et al, 2014;Poisot, 2015;Hwang et al, 2017;Wiese et al, 2019). The combination of incentive structure and lack of training in best practices can lead to inflexible, hard-to-maintain software (Brown et al, 2014;Johanson and Hasselbring, 2018).…”
Section: Growing Painsmentioning
confidence: 99%