This post demonstrates why I hate UI programming. The number of unpredictable, niggling little things that can go wrong exceeds my patience for dealing with them. I kind of enjoy thinking through the ways something might fail and writing tests to catch them, but aimlessly clicking around to see if anything breaks feels haphazard and annoying.
Is UI construction inherently that complex, or have we just not found the right programming model yet? Is it unreasonable to wish that sometimes things would just look and work the way I intended on the first try?
Your argument is that if a paper makes a valuable contribution then it should be accepted even if it's not well written. But the definition of "well written" is that it makes it easy for the reader to understand its value. If a paper is not well written, then reviewers won't understand its value and will reject it.
International Research Institute for Climate and Society, Columbia Climate School | Intermediate Software Developer | Palisades, New York (near NYC) | ONSITE | VISA
The IRI Data Library team curates and provides access to data related to the Earth's climate and its effects on human populations, and builds web applications that present such data in forms that are needed by decision makers at government agencies and NGOs worldwide. Most of our current work is related to agriculture and food security in the developing world.
We're looking for an intermediate-level software developer (3-5 years experience) to help with improving the platform as well as developing applications on that platform for specific projects. Experience with linux system administration/devops, scientific/numerical computing in python, GIS programming, and web application development would all be appreciated.
Is UI construction inherently that complex, or have we just not found the right programming model yet? Is it unreasonable to wish that sometimes things would just look and work the way I intended on the first try?