re: #492 Walter L. Newton

That’s not possible, since Charles doesn’t want any of the hacked material on LGF or linked to, so it would be hard to discuss the actual code here.

I have the actual fortran and IDL code, at least all that’s available to the “public.” Yes, it’s sloppy, and you are correct, sloppy doesn’t not mean code that doesn’t do what it’s suppose to. Even sloppy code can perform successfully.

I suspect that Charles might make an exception if someone were to produce a clear, indisputable example of deliberate abuse, or even of a substantive error leading to demonstrably false results, so long as it was properly documented. It would probably be a good idea to ask permission first, of course.

So far, though, I haven’t seen any such thing. I’ve only examined bits and pieces of the code, not the actual source files themselves, and only casually at that. So far, I haven’t seen anything leaping out suggesting profound error, but without the entire code base it’s impossible to really make such a judgment.

I completely agree that the code isn’t up to professional standards. It is, in fact, exactly like thousands of lines of code I’ve dealt with on a daily basis, produced not by software people but by scientists and engineers in other disciplines. If it works, they don’t care what it looks like, despite my bitching.