Other authors of research and I are the ones demanding this. We're the ones giving the gift horse in the first place. People who don't play a part in creating human knowledge generally aren't interested in reading papers about how hard-to-use software that's no longer available worked on obsolete computers they don't have access to, especially when the problems that software solved are problems they don't have.

I'm not demanding that the ACM do more. I'm demanding that they do less, by renouncing their right to sue other people for legally archive and redistribute ACM papers, so the ACM don't bear the full responsibility of doing so themselves. That way, I can do more of that wealth-of-knowledge-creating stuff you're so excited about, benefiting the ACM's members. It's a win-win.

It really isn't very likely that anyone will ever publish a computer science paper as impactful as Dijkstra's go-to-statement thing. That affects how we write literally every line of code in every language today except maybe assembly. Maybe one of the LLM papers might compete?

On a different note, it seems like you mostly post comments on HN in order to personally attack other commenters, as you are doing here, and to advocate political positions. That isn't what the site is for. If you keep doing it, they're going to ban you.

> It really isn't very likely that anyone will ever publish a computer science paper as impactful as Dijkstra's go-to-statement thing.

Ok, disclaimer that I am not a computer scientist (work in semiconductors so only tangentially related). But, this statement has the same "end of history" energy has the famous Philipp von Jolly quote about end of theoretical physics:

"In this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes."

I'm not claiming you are saying its end of CS, just the claim that there cannot be a new paradigm discovered in CS doesn't sit right with me.

> Other authors of research and I are the ones demanding this. We're the ones giving the gift horse in the first place. People who don't play a part in creating human knowledge generally aren't interested in reading papers about how hard-to-use software that's no longer available worked on obsolete computers they don't have access to, especially when the problems that software solved are problems they don't have.

You (and I) are free to publish in venues that meet our requirements.

> I'm not demanding that the ACM do more. I'm demanding that they do less, by renouncing their right to sue other people for legally archive and redistribute ACM papers, so the ACM don't bear the full responsibility of doing so themselves. That way, I can do more of that wealth-of-knowledge-creating stuff you're so excited about, benefiting the ACM's members. It's a win-win.

I am not at all worried about this, and there's no real reason for you to be either (the odds of the ACM library vanishing is almost 0), so it seems like you're being needlessly hostile.

> It really isn't very likely that anyone will ever publish a computer science paper as impactful as Dijkstra's go-to-statement thing. That affects how we write literally every line of code in every language today except maybe assembly. Maybe one of the LLM papers might compete?

I'm sorry, but this is absurd. "Attention is all you need" comes to mind as a recent example of a highly impactful paper (not published in an ACM venue, but you're now expanding your claim to the entire field of CS).

> On a different note, it seems like you mostly post comments on HN in order to personally attack other commenters, as you are doing here, and to advocate political positions. That isn't what the site is for. If you keep doing it, they're going to ban you.

You're a real peach.

"Attention Considered Harmful"

"GOTO Is All You Need"