|
I never answered your last question so here goes: > Are you saying that the reproductive challenge poses a difficulty to Common Workflow Language? I don't actually understand how the reproducibility challenge undermines the validity of using CWL / flow-based programming as an approach to promoting reproducible analyses. There certainly wasn't anything in the article that made me think that CWL was challenged, but Hinsen explicitly called out CWL in the abstract, which implies that for some reason he thinks, a priori, that it's a non-solution. He never justifies this implied assumption further, and as near as I can tell, none of the attempted replications used a flow-based language. If Hinsen really aimed to argue against the viability of CWL/flow-based programming as an approach to reproducibility, he would have done a systematic comparison of historical analyses that used a flow-based system (like National Instruments' Labview or Prograph) vs analyses that are more similar to the approach that he seems to favor (i.e., analyses using Mathematica or Maple). While I find the challenge interesting to follow, and the retrocomputing geek in me finds it fun, I don't actually understand what it really accomplished other than being a fun diversion. Assuming that an analysis was written in a Turing-complete language and you didn't use non-deterministic algorithms, you should theoretically be able to reproduce the results exactly on modern hardware, and using non-deterministic algorithms I would imagine that a result would be "close enough" within some kind of confidence interval. You may need to go to great lengths (in terms of emulating instruction sets, ripping tapes, etc), but I think a visit to any retrocomputing festival or computer history museum would have made that pretty obvious from the outset. |