Yesterday, I added this new feature to ngless: if the user asks it to run a non-existent script, it will try it give an error message with a guess of what you probably really meant.
For example, if you type Profiles.ngl, but the script is actually called profile.ngl:
$ ngless Profiles.ngl Exiting after fatal error: File `Profiles.ngl` does not exist. Did you mean 'profile.ngl' (closest match)?
Previously, it would just say Profiles.ngl not found, without a suggestion.
It took me about 10-15 minutes to implement this (actually most of the functionality was already present as ngless already implemented similar functionality in other context). Is it worth it?
When is it worth it to add bells & whistles to research software?
I think we should think about it, in an ideal world, using the utilitarian principle of research software development: software should reduce the overall human effort. If this feature saves more time overall than it took to write, then it’s worth it.
This Utilitarian Principle says that these 15 minutes were well invested if (and only if) this ngless features saves more than 15 minutes for all its users over its lifetime. I expect that every time an user triggers this error, they’ll save a few seconds (say 2 seconds). 15 minutes is 900 seconds. Thus, this feature is worth it if it is triggered over 450 times. Given that we hope that ngless will be widely used, this feature is certainly worth it.
This principle also makes the argument that it would not be worth to add such a feature to a script that is only used in an internal analysis. So, code that was only meant to be used by myself or by myself and a small number of others, should have fewer bells & whistles.
In a non-ideal world, we need to take into account the incentives of the scientific (or commercial) world and the possibility of market failure: the market does not always reward the most selfless behaviour (this includes the “market” for scientific rewards where shiny new things are “paid” more than boring old maintenance).