re: #709 Charles

P.S. I disagree with you about the code. This was not intended to be production code for general use, it was in-house code developed on the fly to address immediate problems. I have also worked in the programming biz for many years, and there’s a huge difference between code intended for public release and code used by scientists to get a job done. The people who create these ad hoc programs are not trained in corporate style code documentation, and you can’t apply those kinds of standards to them.

It’s called quick and dirty programming, and the Internet (and much of the software you use every single day) was built on it. It says nothing at all about the accuracy or the efficacy of the code.

I say it does… and many others have said it does. I’ve got the code… it has inaccuracies and inefficiencies in it.

And I’m not sure what you mean by “on the fly.” Much of the code was the code that was used for the actual modeling that ended up in reports and papers.

Since you didn’t want any of the hacked email or code or other documents posted here, it’s a little hard to simply have statements made that neither of us can back up at this point.

But I know what I am looking at… do you?