[GFK_of_xmaspast]

It works well enough and there's an incredible amount of infrastructure behind it. It's an academic's job to produce research, not code.

[bachmeier]

That was the advice I got from my advisor as a grad student. 15 years later, I disagree strongly. I wasted a lot of time writing code that I couldn't read later, that took forever to get right, and that couldn't be reused. I've made a significant investment in programming tools and it has been worth it. Git alone has probably made me twice as productive.

The logic you state (which is dominant) is wrong. Optimizing the speed of writing the first version of a particular piece of code is a bad idea.

[nine_k]

* Don't unreliable tools impede research?

* Isn't it a good idea to publish code used to produce the results so as to help fellow scientists verify the results and methods?

[GFK_of_xmaspast]

1. Who said matlab was unreliable? (There's a difference between "reliable" and "good")

2. Matlab code gets published all the time.

3. Just because it's not matlab doesn't mean that it's, for example, in a state others can use. See for example: http://reproducibility.cs.arizona.edu/v2/index.html (which isn't perfect, but it's something)