I wish I could say things were better on the academic end of scientific computing.
Expect no documentation in corporations. --> Expect no documentation in research code.
It is not what you do, it is what you sell. --> It is not what you do, it is what you publish.
Not everybody is passionate for engineering. --> It is not what you do, it is what you publish.
2-3 hours of coding a day is great. --> It is not what you do, it is what you publish.
Not giving back to the public domain is a norm. --> Not giving back to the public domain is a norm because you might not own your data, or because you might not have any documentation.
The world outside is not known here a lot. --> Ivory towers?
It is all about getting shit done. --> It is all about getting shit published.
Copy-pasting code can be okay. --> Copy-pasting code is okay.
Code reviews can be skipped. --> Code reviews? You're lucky if we keep track of revisions.
Your specialties usually do not matter. --> You are your specialty.
At the end, you are working for your manager’s and their managers’ paychecks. --> At the end, you are working for your advisor and your advisors’ grants.
To be fair, the job of the academia is to do research. Coding is just a means to an end. If on the other hand, you're distributing your code or it's intended as an ongoing project, then good comments and architecture are important (Disclaimer: I'm a PhD student).
There's still an opportunity cost to writing documentation. How many other people will work on that code? 2-3? 12? 100? 2000? If it's 2-3 or even a dozen, you're better off explaining in person how it works, while if it's 2000 there better be some persistent written documentation.
It probably also doesn't help that the number of people who look at a given piece of code follows a power law, which means that when you're doing the looking, you are probably looking at a piece of code that many other people have looked at. Everybody remembers the terrible mess that they had to puzzle out without any documentation. Most of the time they don't remember all the little experiments they did that never saw the light of day, where time spent documenting would just be wasted.
If the product you're working on is a long term project of the company, it's likely you'll leave before it's over in which case there will be a future person who'll have to figure out your code.
In such a case, documentation is essential as otherwise this person would have to contact you after you've moved onto other projects and may have forgotten the intimate details of the code making things tricky.
That's why you have at least two people work on every part of the code, ideally together, but you could easily arrange a hand-off. Solo-developer projects are bad ideas for other reasons, notably that if you get hit by a truck the company is SOL.
Hey there, author of the post here. Thanks for pointing that out, this is supporting and it feels good. I was also thinking about the academia path before my graduation.
Expect no documentation in corporations. --> Expect no documentation in research code.
It is not what you do, it is what you sell. --> It is not what you do, it is what you publish.
Not everybody is passionate for engineering. --> It is not what you do, it is what you publish.
2-3 hours of coding a day is great. --> It is not what you do, it is what you publish.
Not giving back to the public domain is a norm. --> Not giving back to the public domain is a norm because you might not own your data, or because you might not have any documentation.
The world outside is not known here a lot. --> Ivory towers?
It is all about getting shit done. --> It is all about getting shit published.
Copy-pasting code can be okay. --> Copy-pasting code is okay.
Code reviews can be skipped. --> Code reviews? You're lucky if we keep track of revisions.
Your specialties usually do not matter. --> You are your specialty.
At the end, you are working for your manager’s and their managers’ paychecks. --> At the end, you are working for your advisor and your advisors’ grants.