CCL:G: Science code manifesto

[Berger Raphael <berger\a/chem.helsinki.fi>]

 Hello CCL-ers!
in my opinion the results of basic research, including computer
 programms,
 must be accessible freely to every human beeing who whishes so. In the
 first instance science is founded by the whole community in a state or
 most of all via taxes, but also in an abstract manner since sicience
 and
 cultre are properties of the whole society. Not speaking about moral or
 philosphical principles. Last but not least it turns out, that
 commercial QC
 programms grow old and get inflexible much faster than free codes. Of course
 its a pity, that able scientists who work hard to contribute to high-level
 computer programms cannot earn their money more easily.
 best regards
 On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, George Fitzgerald George.Fitzgerald/./accelrys.com wrote:
>  Sent to CCL by: George Fitzgerald [George.Fitzgerald[A]accelrys.com]
>  As a member of a company that makes money from selling software, I probably have
>  a different outlook on this than most CCLers. But I have one very practical
>  question: as a reviewer, do you really have the time and expertise to review
>  1000s of lines of source code?  I find that properly reviewing a paper already
>  takes several hours. From experience I know that reviewing somebody's source
>  code can take days.
>  Can anybody give me an example of what you'd even look for in the source code?
>  I'm thinking back to, for example, Peter Gill's 'PRISM' method for Gaussian
>  integration, or Benny Johnson and DFT analytic 2nd derivatives. Are you claiming
>  that those papers shouldnât have been published without the reviewer
>  reviewing the code?
>  -george>