[torchous]

I moved from CS into Earth science a decade ago and I was similarly appalled at the state of affairs in the beginning. First, this doesn't have anything to do with how smart people are, it's a question of time and other resources. Our job simply isn't to write pretty code, it's just a means to an end. If you know how to do something in FORTRAN, why would you invest into learning how to do it with <lastest trend>? It's a huge cost! Second, the evolution of such code occurs often over decades; as the article states, with students and post-docs hammering along until it finally does what they need to get their project to move forward. The code usually begins with "Do X" and then the rest of the alphabet is tacked on later. We all know it's bad. But in the end, it's usually only your own lab group using this stuff; maybe a handful of people around the world. The cost of polishing something that started out as hastily written code to get something done in time for {conference,paper,proposal} a decade ago is simply to high. It works. Done.

I wish the state of affairs was prettier, but I doubt it will change any time soon. And frankly, I don't think it has to. Software engineers will always find something to complain about others' code (coding style discussions come to mind). If there's value in commercializing scientific prototypes, experts should rush in and do it. There's no need for us to invest in perfect code just in case someone may want to reuse it. Having said that, NSF is starting to fund initiatives to improve the state of affairs. For my field, it's EarthCube: https://www.earthcube.org/ but this seems to be fumbling along; all of their goals would need to be adapted by scientists outside of that community (standards, etc). Without the right incentives (funding, publications), it's just not going to happen.