Re: How we train numerical programmers

[Eleftherios Gkioulekas <lf at amath dot washington dot edu>]

The problem is that desperately needed innovations in software
do not count as "research" in our community. Papers with stupid
plots that you can not confirm without contacting their author
to see the code, do. We treat software like a LAB, a "tool". That's the 
source of all evil.

lf.

>
>There is a problem with
>the way we train numerical programmers.
>Most mathematicians, scientists and engineers
>are amateur application programmers
>who write code for their own use
>and do little or no testing before
>they attempt to use their programs.
>Most professional application programmers,
>on the other hand, are computer scientists
>who write code for other people to use
>and they do extensive testing before
>the application is placed into service.
>
>Numerical class libraries should be designed
>by experts in numerical analysis,
>computer architecture and computer arithmetic
>so that neither amateur or professional
>application programmers are obliged
>to muck about with the implementation
>of the numerical class libraries that they use.
>
>Part of the problem is that we don't teach
>numerical programmers to distinguish
>between the role of the class library developer
>and the role of the application programmer.
>We teach numerical programmers
>the details of numerical algorithms
>that are implemented as library functions
>as if we expected all of them
>to become numerical class library developers
>when, in fact, most of them will actually
>become numerical application programmers.
>For the most part, they would be better off
>if we would teach them how to use, evaluate
>and select a numerical class library.
>We need more numerical application programmers
>NOT more numerical class library developers.
>
>