Yesterday a blog post by Cyrille Rossant entitled "Moving away from HDF5" caught my eye. My own tendency at the moment is to use HDF5 more and more, so I was interested in why someone else would want to do the opposite. Here is my conclusion after reading his post, plus some ideas about where scientific data management is or should be heading in my opinion.

A recurrent theme in computational science (and elsewhere) is the need to combine machine-readable information (which in the following I will call "facts" for simplicity) with a narrative for the benefit of human readers.

Welcome to the last post on this WordPress blog. I have set up a new blog for all my future writing. The reason for the move is that the user interface at WordPress is changing all the time without ever getting better. I like to write my posts on my own computer using Emacs, rather than typing into a rudimentary editing window on a Web site. This is not completely impossible with WordPress, but more hassle than it's worth.

Like all information with a complex structure, scientific knowledge evolves over time. New ideas turn into validated models, and are ultimately integrated into a coherent body of knowledge defined by the concensus of a scientific community. In this essay, I explore how this process is affected by the ever increasing use of computers in scientific research.

We all know that software deployment in a research environment can be a pain, but knowing this as a fact is not quite the same as experiencing it in reality. Over the last days, I spent way more time that I would have imagined on what sounds like a simple task: installing a scientific application written in Python on a Linux machine for use by a group of students in a training session.

Yesterday I participated (as a visitor) in the kickoff meeting for OpenDreamKit, where one recurrent topic of discussion was notebooks, both Jupyter and Sage, including the question if they could be brought together. This reminded me of a recent blog post by Kirill Pomogajko entitled "Why I don't like Jupyter". And it reminded me of my own long-term project of integrating Jupyter with my ActivePapers system for reproducible research.

SciPy 2015 is over, meaning that many non-participants like myself are now busy catching up with what happened by watching the videos.

Three years ago, I first looked at the then-very-new language Julia. Back then, I concluded that there were many interesting features, but also regretted too much bad Matlab influence in the array handling. A hands-on Julia tutorial in my neighborhood was a good occasion to take another look at this language, which has evolved quite a bit since 2012, and continues to evolve rapidly.

Now that the birch pollen season is definitely over, I can draw some conclusions from a two-year experiment with the impressive sample size of one - myself. As you will see, my topic is not so much the experiment itself, but the circumstances in which it happened. I have been allergic to birch pollen for more than thirty years.

In a recent blog post, Titus Brown asks if software is a primary product of science, and basically says "no" (but do read the post for the details). A blog-post length reply by Daniel Katz comes to the opposite conclusion (again, please read the post before continuing here). I left a short comment on Titus' blog but also felt compelled to expand this into a blog post of its own - so here it is. Titus introduces a useful criterion for what

While reading the final report of the reproducibility workshop at XSEDE14, I noticed a statement that I encounter frequently in discussions about reproducible research: In the interest of clarity, let me start by pointing out that within the systematic terminology that I am trying to adopt (see this post for an explanation), I will write "bitwise replicability" from now on, as the problem falls into the technical domain (getting the same result