[patrick451]

> I don't believe "scientific code" is fundamentally different from any other code, I would go with following normal development practices

> 1) review design ("don't reinvent wheel")

> 2) add tests

> 3) make code review

> 4) version control

> etc.

In my experience, this is pretty quixotic and will lead to your failure as a scientist. Basically nobody is writing tests. Code review is pretty much unheard of. There only "design review" comes from your journal's peer review process and generally has nothing to with the code. You can jump through all those hoops while your colleagues keep cranking out papers.

[__marvin_the__]

I just got reminded of this scene from Big Bang Theory.

Sheldon: laughing at his own joke Howard: I haven't seen him laugh that hard since the day Leonard made that multiplication error. Sheldon: laughing hysterically Oh. Oh, Lord! That multiplication error. He though he carried a 1. But he didn't! Leonard: It's not funny. That mistake got published. Sheldon: Stop! I'm gonna wet myself.

[nooorofe]

Yes, that part is different, reusability of the code is not expected to be the same as normal software code. Not different that the code starts from requirements (which are different) and it should be correct, which basically is the "following normal development practices".