[nmrm]

> For scientific coding, comments should align with the underlying theory for the code

100x this. Scientific software should be held to a different set of standards than non-scientific software, primarily because you can probably not assume that your reading is familiar with the underlying domain.

[dragonwriter]

> Scientific software should be held to a different set of standards than non-scientific software, primarily because you can probably not assume that your reading is familiar with the underlying domain.

As someone who works as a programmer and system analyst dealing with code in a non-scientific business domain where I've also worked on the domain side, I don't think that this separates scientific code from any other codes. Programmers often disdain domain knowledge beyond that which they already have found to be immediately relevant. Which is perfectly understandable -- there's a reason they chose to specialize in programming rather than as domain experts in whatever domain.

[nmrm]

I thought through this some, and your comment resonates -- it's not right to set aside scientific code from other code with a complicated domain.

But I think complicated program segments related to business practices etc. also deserves comments, even just "see spec xyz" or "see section 1.2.3 of code xyz" (similar to how you might say "See Smith et al. '14" in a scientific setting)