3d-reorganization-prostate-canc VS superconductor

You're right, it is substantially more work to clean and organize the code for publishing. Being open about your work does make the attack surface much larger and more likely to be nitpicked, criticized, have an error found, etc.

But it is more honest. Whatever you think about the effort required to do this, there's value in honesty.

Here is an example of my own scientific work:

- paper [0]

- preprint [1]

- GitHub [2]

It certainly wasn't easy to get all of this done. But doing this can also be a guide for others. They get to see exactly what you've done so that they don't waste months on the exact implementation. They can see where maybe you've made some mistakes to avoid them. They can see so much of the implicit knowledge that is left out of your paper and learn from it. Your code isn't going to be perfect, but what paper is, either?

Everyone will be a critic, anyway, so make it easy to pick up criticism of the stuff you feel the least confident in and do better next time. You won't get better if no one sees your code.

[0]: https://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/81/23/5833

[1]: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.05.425333v2

[2]: https://github.com/LupienLab/3d-reorganization-prostate-canc...

I published some of my Academic code like a tool for simulating superconducting circuits [1] or a tool to manage lab instruments for quantum computing (or other) experiments [2]. It's super niche but both tools have found users in other labs that even keep developing them (at least for [2]). And it's nice to look at your code after 10 years and realize how much you've grown as a programmer :)

[1]: https://github.com/adewes/superconductor

I designed such superconducting chips for my MSc thesis and had them manufactured by Hypres, one of the few foundries that offered such a process. Designing superconducting circuits is great fun, I even wrote my own circuit simulator (https://github.com/adewes/superconductor/) as there were few good options available.

RSFQ was quite hyped up in the nineties, Prof. Likharev at Stony Brook had a team working on RSFQ circuit elements to replace conventional semiconductor logic. At the time the achievable speed was fantastic as compared to regular circuits, (un)fortunately semiconductor processes kept evolving and today RSFQ is only interesting for some niche applications like fast microwave circuits (and even there HEMT transistors are often a better solution).

Also, getting circuits with more than 10.000 junctions to work was quite tricky as the fabrication processes weren't very reliable and transferring flux quanta is a bit more noisy than storing charges on an FET, so I'm doubtful whether we could even have large-scale RSFQ circuits without extensive error correction.

Well, it's still an amazingly fun and fascinating field, really hope we might see a revival of it one day (maybe if we get room-temperature superconductors).