5 ms·

You could also choose to use formally verified software for sensitive research.

by jaddood 7y ago

rhinoceraptor 7y ago
Full-time developers don't (to a first approximation) use formal verification, much less research scientists.
- stevenhuang 7y ago
  Other way around. Research scientists are the ones that may (or should) require additional rigor in their results. Formal verification would presumably help in that regard.
  - rhinoceraptor 7y ago
    I don't disagree, I'm just saying that we as full-time software developers have not made formal verification standard practice, or even approachable. I would bet the average software developer has never even heard of it. So to expect people who do not write software full-time to do so is a little crazy.
jacquesm 7y ago
You could, but your typical research scientist in biology will not even be aware of what formally verified software is, and even if it remains to be seen if there is such a thing for their particular application.
- bouchard 7y ago
  There's also the issue of cost, which can go up real quick in some fields. It can be hard to justify expensive software which might not always be able to accomplish whatever you're aiming to do.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    Too bad there's no money in pharma and medical research in general.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      There is plenty of money for marketing. Research is a distant second as you probably well know given your nickname and if someone put their study on hold for a half decade or so just to make sure that the software they use is properly put together the funding would evaporate rapidly for that particular team or individual.
      - rhizome 7y ago
        Let's institute a ban on pharma ads, at least the ones that disclaim "don't take $NEWDRUG if you're allergic to $NEWDRUG," and give the money to research.
  - distant_hat 7y ago
    As a physicist who worked in Biology for a while, money didn't always make things better and sometimes made it worse. Programs with slick user interfaces tended to be overwhelmingly chosen over better open source programs which were command line. In bioinformatics a lot of excellent software is open source and updated regularly. In contrast, closed source software could be nightmarishly opaque in how it handled the data. Also, companies had better salespeople than open source proponents. Graduate students used to take bets about whether a software would be purchased by looking at how hot the salesperson was.
lupire 7y ago
Even informally verified software would be a revolutionary improvement in quality of science.
hatsunearu 7y ago
Considering formal verification for even simple stuff isn't seeing widespread use, well, anywhere, I don't see this happening

You could also choose to use formally verified software for sensitive research.

rhinoceraptor 7y ago

Full-time developers don't (to a first approximation) use formal verification, much less research scientists.

stevenhuang 7y ago
Other way around. Research scientists are the ones that may (or should) require additional rigor in their results. Formal verification would presumably help in that regard.
- rhinoceraptor 7y ago
  I don't disagree, I'm just saying that we as full-time software developers have not made formal verification standard practice, or even approachable. I would bet the average software developer has never even heard of it. So to expect people who do not write software full-time to do so is a little crazy.

jacquesm 7y ago

You could, but your typical research scientist in biology will not even be aware of what formally verified software is, and even if it remains to be seen if there is such a thing for their particular application.

bouchard 7y ago
There's also the issue of cost, which can go up real quick in some fields. It can be hard to justify expensive software which might not always be able to accomplish whatever you're aiming to do.
- rhizome 7y ago
  Too bad there's no money in pharma and medical research in general.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    There is plenty of money for marketing. Research is a distant second as you probably well know given your nickname and if someone put their study on hold for a half decade or so just to make sure that the software they use is properly put together the funding would evaporate rapidly for that particular team or individual.
    - rhizome 7y ago
      Let's institute a ban on pharma ads, at least the ones that disclaim "don't take $NEWDRUG if you're allergic to $NEWDRUG," and give the money to research.
- distant_hat 7y ago
  As a physicist who worked in Biology for a while, money didn't always make things better and sometimes made it worse. Programs with slick user interfaces tended to be overwhelmingly chosen over better open source programs which were command line. In bioinformatics a lot of excellent software is open source and updated regularly. In contrast, closed source software could be nightmarishly opaque in how it handled the data. Also, companies had better salespeople than open source proponents. Graduate students used to take bets about whether a software would be purchased by looking at how hot the salesperson was.

lupire 7y ago

Even informally verified software would be a revolutionary improvement in quality of science.

hatsunearu 7y ago

Considering formal verification for even simple stuff isn't seeing widespread use, well, anywhere, I don't see this happening