There are large differences between research software projects based on where they come from (academia vs. industry vs. passionate individuals) and what they are supposed to do, e.g. quick one-time path to a solution, sell as a product, set new standards, or generally solve one or multiple kinds of problems to a particular research domain. For example, I'd argue both MATLAB and Mathematica are research software. Same with all kinds with of automated theorem provers (usually SMT solvers) and proof assistants. Most of these tools are high-quality, some are commercial, some are not.
Then there are many passion projects by curious individuals, which are (as far as I can see) usually among the highest in quality of what humans produce, though it tends to take many years. A popular non-research example would be the Linux kernel — research software tends to be niche, thus unpopular. Passion projects do not suffer from time-critical aspects or other compromises on quality. What really counts there is quality in the best ways that the creator, which is also the main user of its own software, can think of. I happen to have my own such passion project, pmGenerator, a tool to explore Hilbert-style proof systems with a high emphasis on small (partly minimal) condensed detachment proofs, and I find its code (which is written in C++) mostly beautiful.
On the other end of the spectrum, where people got no time to do useful things because they have to write grant proposals and do administrative tasks, of course trashy software is written (because they merely have to), as well as trashy papers are written and bad courses held. IMO, good research is patient and not at all focused on management tasks.
From my own experience in and with academia I can say that much of academic research is bad research put out by not very curious individuals only for their own personal gain, while they do not really care about science. The "software" or even "papers" they produce are often not only ugly, but of no actual value to anything but their own wallets (or the existence of their own department / academic position), and commonly known as “bullshit science” — like most of string theory research, to provide an example for this widespread phenomenon.
That is because academia tends to work in ways where quantity and going with the flow are far higher rewarded than quality, originality and innovation. The most intelligent and curious individuals, i.e. those who actually care about good science and research, tend to stay away from academia for those reasons. They are rare but they exist, and I'd argue they produce the majority of good software, including research software.
This is not to say that no good research software comes from people in academia. In fact, I know some excellent software mainly created and maintained by people that still pursue academic careers. The Lean language and theorem prover comes to mind. However, such projects are usually still some kind of passion project for the individuals involved, i.e. they tend to additionally spend a great deal of their free time on it.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
There are large differences between research software projects based on where they come from (academia vs. industry vs. passionate individuals) and what they are supposed to do, e.g. quick one-time path to a solution, sell as a product, set new standards, or generally solve one or multiple kinds of problems to a particular research domain. For example, I'd argue both MATLAB and Mathematica are research software. Same with all kinds with of automated theorem provers (usually SMT solvers) and proof assistants. Most of these tools are high-quality, some are commercial, some are not.
Then there are many passion projects by curious individuals, which are (as far as I can see) usually among the highest in quality of what humans produce, though it tends to take many years. A popular non-research example would be the Linux kernel — research software tends to be niche, thus unpopular. Passion projects do not suffer from time-critical aspects or other compromises on quality. What really counts there is quality in the best ways that the creator, which is also the main user of its own software, can think of. I happen to have my own such passion project, pmGenerator, a tool to explore Hilbert-style proof systems with a high emphasis on small (partly minimal) condensed detachment proofs, and I find its code (which is written in C++) mostly beautiful.
On the other end of the spectrum, where people got no time to do useful things because they have to write grant proposals and do administrative tasks, of course trashy software is written (because they merely have to), as well as trashy papers are written and bad courses held. IMO, good research is patient and not at all focused on management tasks.
From my own experience in and with academia I can say that much of academic research is bad research put out by not very curious individuals only for their own personal gain, while they do not really care about science. The "software" or even "papers" they produce are often not only ugly, but of no actual value to anything but their own wallets (or the existence of their own department / academic position), and commonly known as “bullshit science” — like most of string theory research, to provide an example for this widespread phenomenon.
That is because academia tends to work in ways where quantity and going with the flow are far higher rewarded than quality, originality and innovation. The most intelligent and curious individuals, i.e. those who actually care about good science and research, tend to stay away from academia for those reasons. They are rare but they exist, and I'd argue they produce the majority of good software, including research software.
This is not to say that no good research software comes from people in academia. In fact, I know some excellent software mainly created and maintained by people that still pursue academic careers. The Lean language and theorem prover comes to mind. However, such projects are usually still some kind of passion project for the individuals involved, i.e. they tend to additionally spend a great deal of their free time on it.