That is an interesting read, thanks for pointing it out. Though I think that most of his criticisms are elitist bullshit. Who the hell cares that it is written in Fortran? Obviously he hasn't worked much in the physics community, there is lots of Fortran still there. I've been interfacing with a software system running on an old version of AIX that uses a "database" that seems to be either dbase or foxpro or some such. Flat file, non-relational, no odbc connections, etc. The front end uses a Citrix Java Applet to replicate terminal access in a browser window. It is a challenge to say the least. But it is a system actively sold by GE Healthcare and used to run very large clinical billing systems.
I do agree, however, that the code is a bit scary. At least the climate guys document their code though. Maybe this will get them the funding they need to hire a team of programmers to bring everything up to date. Judah On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Jerry Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > I thought these musings on the code behind the data was more interesting. > (John Stodder, I hate you for pointing this post out, and costing me way too > much sleep). > > http://www.di2.nu/200911/23a.htm > > I don't necessarily agree with the author. He has obviously never worked on > a multi-year programing project, nor worked for the government or science > sector. And doesn't seem to understand the constraints that are placed on > most projects. (There is seldom a "make it right" option available, just a > "make it work a little better, in no time and no money"). > > And this is obviously not the only climate model running. But the code _is_ > pretty scary in there. > > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Selective release? >> > The emails were sent to the BBC, then uploaded and never published on >> > realClimate.com and a few other US sites. Finally released in Russia >> > and China. >> >> My understanding is that the emails sent to the BBC and elsewhere do >> not generally contain all the emails in the various exchanges between >> parties. I could be wrong however. >> >> > Are you sure they were hacked and not released by a whistle blower? >> >> Everyone I've seen thus far involved with the emails has considered it >> a hack. If it was a whistle blower, no one has yet to come forward >> publicly or even anonymously. >> >> > How about "Mike's Nature trick" or "Hide the Decline"? >> >> Explained by Michael Mann: >> >> http://www.examiner.com/x-10722-Austin-Science-Policy-Examiner~y2009m11d25-Climatolgist-Michael-Mann-responds-to-CRU-hack<http://www.examiner.com/x-10722-Austin-Science-Policy-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d25-Climatolgist-Michael-Mann-responds-to-CRU-hack> >> >> I'm sure you won't believe him of course but it has what those emails >> do not: context. >> >> Judah >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:308698 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
