would you like this to be boosted?

@openscience I think you can always assume 'yes' is the answer to this question 🤣

@openscience is repetition of code seen as bad for open science?! Sometimes it's technically challenging to use a loop!

@pwgtennant
imho; Well it's not a requirement, however clarity facilitates understanding and reusability, thereby increasing value. Whether the repetition of program lines makes the biggest difference is of course debatable

@openscience Sometimes I find 'efficient' code extremely difficult to read and understand, whereas repetitious code can be a lot clearer... 🤔

@pwgtennant I can agree with that. I think the inspection tools have a big effect. I think that if code has been sighted by more than one person, preferably by an outsider and along with some useful comments, it will be comprehensible to most readers.

@openscience @pwgtennant
I don't know what the right answers are but this feels like an enormously healthy conversation to be having.

Best practice for research/analytical code may or may not reflect best practice for code in industry. A process to get consensus around what research code best practice is seems valuable.

I agree with Peter - I think readability is more important in research/analytical code. Efficiency is often less important (at least I hope so!).