I read the synopsis and looked over a few thousand lines of the cleaned up code.
The analysis includes digging through revision history which is useful for understanding what the developers were trying to do versus what they did do. There is good insight in looking at it that way.
The code I read, on its own, is a horrific mess. Not unusual, mind you, but still a mess.
Well-written code is structured to reflect what it is doing. Well-written code is compartmentalized, separated into many, many small pieces that are easy to read and easy to understand. This has many advantages, one of which is to allow new programmers to add or change functionality quickly and without misunderstanding side effects they don’t intend.
In just a simple perusal of the code, I noticed an if statement that checks for airports. If there are none, then it sets the number of hotels to zero. Imagine being somewhere else in the code and trying to add some simulation that relies on the number of hotels and your code has no effect even though you keep changing the input of the number of hotels. If you didn’t change the code that reads in the number of airports, then you are going to spin your wheels and make mistakes. If you do find the airport code, then you are going to try and change the airport code for your needs while trying not to break the reason why that was put there which is not what you are working on and don’t know how to test. The result after you touch it will be a bit worse for the next programmer that comes along. The way this code reads, this has happened to it a lot of times.
Suffice it to say, this code is not production quality, let alone valid for making policy decisions on.
Agreed, and also looked at some of the code. It isn't even alpha quality. It's hard to imagine that's the improved, refactored version.
They closed the github issues thread where people were asking for the original code (the one file version) a week ago when they realized people weren't really buying their excuses for not making it available.
In just a simple perusal of the code, I noticed an if statement that checks for airports. If there are none, then it sets the number of hotels to zero.
Theres a great write up on the code here
https://lockdownsceptics.org/code-review-of-fergusons-model/
The program was literally using the R0 as an input AND and output in the model! Insane!
I read the synopsis and looked over a few thousand lines of the cleaned up code.
The analysis includes digging through revision history which is useful for understanding what the developers were trying to do versus what they did do. There is good insight in looking at it that way.
The code I read, on its own, is a horrific mess. Not unusual, mind you, but still a mess.
Well-written code is structured to reflect what it is doing. Well-written code is compartmentalized, separated into many, many small pieces that are easy to read and easy to understand. This has many advantages, one of which is to allow new programmers to add or change functionality quickly and without misunderstanding side effects they don’t intend.
In just a simple perusal of the code, I noticed an if statement that checks for airports. If there are none, then it sets the number of hotels to zero. Imagine being somewhere else in the code and trying to add some simulation that relies on the number of hotels and your code has no effect even though you keep changing the input of the number of hotels. If you didn’t change the code that reads in the number of airports, then you are going to spin your wheels and make mistakes. If you do find the airport code, then you are going to try and change the airport code for your needs while trying not to break the reason why that was put there which is not what you are working on and don’t know how to test. The result after you touch it will be a bit worse for the next programmer that comes along. The way this code reads, this has happened to it a lot of times.
Suffice it to say, this code is not production quality, let alone valid for making policy decisions on.
Agreed, and also looked at some of the code. It isn't even alpha quality. It's hard to imagine that's the improved, refactored version.
They closed the github issues thread where people were asking for the original code (the one file version) a week ago when they realized people weren't really buying their excuses for not making it available.
Lol
that was such an amazing breakdown, TY!