Don't see this happening scientists are totally happy installing R or Matlab etc. Often a lab even sticks with windows b/c of some drivers for a sensor that only exists for windows
One thing that I found mind blowing initially was that unbricking my pixel 5 involved simply going to Google's install page for it in Chrome with the usb connected and it reflashed successfully.
Of course, there's nothing fundamentally new there, I'm sure Java applets could have done it on a serial port if somebody tried, but it was impressive given how gimped most os-level access is in a browser.
So I would imagine you could write just enough webusb code to get new instruments to work that you wouldn't need local apps as a manufacturer.
The knife cuts both ways, though: webusb / webhid / webmidi allow raw access to physical devices which weren't designed for it, and therefore don't have any protections for it. You're just one nag screen away from having your devices be permanently hacked by some random website.
It's quite worrying seeing the Chrome team have such blatant disrespect for basic security. Rather than using an allowlist for known-good devices or using some kind of handshake to validate the device is okay with a certain website talking to it, they use a blocklist to prevent a website from messing with things like keyboards/mice/u2f keys. It's a massive footgun waiting to go off.
Firefox refuses to implement those APIs due to security concerns, and until they do a serious design overhaul it'd probably be better if Chrome hid it behind a default-off feature switch too.
I'm pretty sure I did have to give permission for this to work, and my default instinct for such requests is to say no or close the page immediately, unless it's something I actively want, like in this case. I take your point though, I'd prefer that there were a whole other page I had to go to and enable something like this.
On the other hand, I've always hated how even something I've written for myself can be hobbled at the alter of security out of religious zeal. At one point you really couldn't access local files, although the orthodoxy has now shifted. I just wish it were easy to just point to a directory and say that's all you're getting, but do whatever you want in there.
> So I would imagine you could write just enough webusb code to get new instruments to work that you wouldn't need local apps as a manufacturer.
Yes, delivering device control software in a browser with webusb from a cloud platform will usher in a whole new chapter of keeping people from truly owning the scientific research equipment they have procured!
Enterprise companies have huge issues with installing, securing and maintaining open-source software though. Using browser based tools doesn't really resolve the underlying organizational and competence issues, but at least it lets people do their jobs.
From what I see helping some friends not well versed with programming doing their PhDs, FORTRAN still has a lot of penetration with scientists. Lots of climate models are FORTRAN code.
Also, through helping them I can see the dire state of scientific code, it's a mess, if departments had the budget to employ 1-2 professional programmers to help them mentor staff it could be extremely helpful for science code to be more easily shared and reasoned about, some of the code I've seen is basically throw away code after the contributors aren't around anymore...
I get the impression that you think that Fortran is a bad language for science.
Modern Fortran is a nice language for many scientific computing tasks. For me, I like Fortran because it's basically the easiest statically-typed compiled language (I rarely have to think about pointers, for instance), it's basically as fast as C, it has some good features for my variety of scientific computing (arrays in particular), and it has many compilers. Certainly, a better language could be designed without the legacy baggage and some features I'd like (better generics in particular), but I haven't seen anything better yet myself.
Now, legacy FORTRAN (note caps) is often a mess. It wasn't until the Fortran 90 standard that the capitalization changed, and the language changed a lot with that standard as well. I suspect the issues that you're seeing are more from many scientists not modernizing, and not from Fortran in itself.
No, not at all, I didn't want to imply that, simply noted that Fortran is still used a lot in science and that scientists would greatly benefit from programmers to mentor them on how to write code in whatever language in a better way.
A lot of scientific code is worse than a mess, it outright doesn't work and yields incorrect results, a problem which is then routinely covered up. I've seen this first hand :( The worst part is that universities don't realize how much they don't know. On the rare occasions outsiders notice what's going on they are faced with a wall of baffling excuses and justifications for why so much doesn't work, like "if it didn't crash it must be correct" or "scientists don't need unit tests, we just look at the results and know they are right because we're experts". Academics are happy to pronounce that professional coders can't judge the correctness of their work and do so loudly and publicly.
As for money, well departments do have the budgets to hire developers. Science funding is in the high billions in most western countries. The problem is not departmental budgets, it's a social problem. Universities love the practice of spreading money amongst as many professors and tiny departments as possible in order to lay claim to every possible area of human knowledge/experience. Combine that with a culture of low standards and coverups and you've got a recipe for disasters (e.g. invariably critical bug fixes that corrupt data are described as not affecting the final results even when that clearly can't be true).
I have the same experience in a psychology faculty. I helped a PhD student who was working on some MATLAB code. The amount of code I had to write for something similar as they were doing was orders of magnitude lower, and faster to write. But they spent months hurting their brains and therefor thought they were doing something really smart. There was a lot of micromanagement of clueless researchers, and the consequence is that everything had to be done the exact same way as the more experienced members of the lab did previously. This was the most wasteful work organization I've seen in my life, but there was little awareness of it, compared to other state-subsidized projects.
Some departments are starting to hire programmers. There's an effort to define this as a (broad) job category under the heading "Research Software Engineer":
Institutional support varies widely; some projects or teams are rather well funded for big projects and senior talent, while at other schools, the cost structure is more aimed at "one off" projects staffed by more recent graduates.
That's been around for a while but the pay for these roles is very uncompetitive, and universities don't care if professors don't do it. It doesn't make any difference to whether you get published or not so it'll probably remain niche.
Now, if journals start rejecting papers because the code isn't provided or because it was provided but professional software engineers reviewed it and gave it a thumbs down, that'd change. But journals struggle to keep obviously AI generated material out of their pages, so they aren't going to do anything like that.
It depends. Some of the foundation-funded positions are competitive, and a few centers have surprisingly professional leadership. People are trying to organize, and- even if it's an uphill climb- there's been some improvement at the edges.
Anecdotally, some of the RSE leads I've spoken to are seeing more long-term demand than they predicted, which might lead to more room for senior roles. Currently quite a few teams (outside the big centers) seem to be priced way too low, usually explained as because they're testing the waters.... so "cheap student labor" and "one off project" is what they can afford.
Minor heretical aside: one thing I miss about old twitter is that academia was developing a real "second layer" on top of journals, where things like reproducibility could be discussed publicly. PubPeer is a partial solution, as are GitHub issues... if enough gatekeepy people really see value in code quality, norms will shift with or without mandates.
Research software engineers are paid what they are worth. Typically a bit more than a postdoc, but not that much more. The problem is that the academia is a cash-starved environment, and everyone's work is worth much less than similar work in the industry.
Another problem is the PI-centric model. Most of the funding goes to individual labs. If a typical grant is $200k/year, you are not going to pay competitive salaries. And you're probably not going to hire a software engineer, because then you won't have anyone doing the actual research.
I think that's the rationale behind organizing separate teams as service organizations (mini contractors who serve multiple PIs).
Other option is research "centers" with multiple PIs. Not an option for most fields, but a few, like bioinformatics, can justify both the cost and the shared employee.
Uh, why would "profession coders" be able to check the work? Given "floating point is weird" articles appear here regularly, and the comments show widespread misconceptions about how they work, I'm not sure adding random software engineers to the process would help in some way.
Also, most research funding is tied to specific projects, and the amounts tend to be quite small.
The buggy model I reviewed had, amongst other problems, floating point non-determinisms. The average software dev is going to be better at this stuff than someone who only learned enough to make some numbers appear on screen, and are those numbers right? Well, hard to say, probably doesn't really matter.
Of course, there's nothing fundamentally new there, I'm sure Java applets could have done it on a serial port if somebody tried, but it was impressive given how gimped most os-level access is in a browser.
So I would imagine you could write just enough webusb code to get new instruments to work that you wouldn't need local apps as a manufacturer.