Yes! We need to see more material under Matt Might's CRAPL license. I feel a strong urge to write off any result that doesn't have accompanying code with it.
If I brute-force detection of the first 10000 prime numbers (for some non-CS context) by testing their divisibility from n to 1 it's horribly inefficient and programmers may laugh, but it's accurate, simple, and easily reproducible. Given that a definition of a prime number as divisible only by itself and 1, it may be better to present a brute-force algorithm than to get into a sideline discussion about validating some new-fangled method like the Sieve of Erasthostenes, that upstart.
Science aims at proof rather than efficiency. What matters is the quality of the result, and its reproducibility. If you can get to the same result in a much more timely fashion that's awesome, but that's an engineering achievement rather than a scientific one. I don't think that anyone wants to put out code labeled as CRAP in an attempt to mollify engineers.
And that's to be expected, because of how most scientific code gets written, and what the incentives are. And releasing this code would still be strictly better than not releasing it. We just need to keep the expectations of code quality low, which the CRAPL license does.
Your comment reads to me like you want non-programmers to ritually humiliate themselves by labeling their stuff as CRAP before you will deign to parse it for correctness. Patronizing people is not a good way to get them on-side.
We just need to keep the expectations of code quality low, which the CRAPL license does.
The purpose of the CRAPL is to make code accessible, not to lower expectations. It's not about what you think of the code, it's about whether the code yields correct results.
Not to dredge up a functional vs imperative battle, but I feel FP has a lower impedance mismatch with mathematical concepts generally.
You might have better luck in a quasi-research public venue. For example, I work at a public agency that uses your tax dollars to forecast travel demand, and then use the results of that statistical modeling (plus a thick shmear of political wrangling) to decide how to spend more of your tax dollars.
Much of this model code is developed as part of an honest to goodness research process (yay!) by contract software developers that public agencies can afford (not so yay). In other words, things like revision control and unit tests are mostly dismissed as extravagances and unwarranted delays. Validation that is performed doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
I'm betting there are a million and one of these kind of projects. Some of us are trying to figure out internal and external issues so we can post this sort of thing on places like GitHub. Others are already there.
If you pick a topic you're interested in, and ask the right people, it'll probably be worth some authorship cred.
Does that mean to 'notify the Author about Your work', or 'notify the (Author of Your work)' (i.e. yourself)?
If this license is meant to be serious then I should probably notify its author about these concerns.