Of course, both are needed for great science. Nonetheless, your paper alone should provide a good enough description of the conditions and methods you used for the paper to be reproducible.
In fact, it can easily be argued that the ability to just run your code instead of re-implementing it according to your description is actually detrimental. To see how, consider that a bug in your code, re-used by other researchers, can easily lead to multiple derivative works finding entirely wrong results. In contrast, if those other researchers re-implemented your method there would be a much lower probability of them doing the same mistake you did, leading to incongruent results and hence raising alarms that probably lead to the discovery of your bug. Although re-implementing your algorithms is significantly more work, the overall quality of our research would benefit from doing so...
Too bad there's an 8-page limit, then.
On a personal note: I'm sick of smart-ass reviewers, unprofessional researchers, results over-selling (to put it mildly) and so on. I think the whole system is so corrupted that i just quit research in despair. Unfortunately, I don't see how blogs and/or just "publish the code" would magically solve all those problems.
Anyway, publishing your code is certainly a good thing to, so I applaud and encourage you to keep doing it!
This is a dated view of AI research.
Promising research appears in workshops, blogs, and/or arXiV. Finished research appears in conferences. Nobody's sure what journals are for.
Of course if you are in one of the Ivy league universities this may be different. Otherwise... yeah, you can feel research moves too fast for journals, but curricular evaluation practices moves even slower.
I agree with GP. The view that conference publications is less important than journal papers is inaccurate, depending on your field.
In my field, it's as you describe. Conference papers are not polished, and journal publications is what matters in your academic career.
For many of my peers in some disciplines in CS, it was the opposite. Getting into a highly regarded conference was much more valued than publishing in a journal.
Then I found this was not limited to CS.
It really just depends on your discipline's culture.
The conference software they were using had a sketchy form for uploading supplementary data, but it appeared that they expected it to be used for small data tables or something. It certainly wasn't going to be an option to upload 12 GB of data into their conference software; they mentioned nothing about code, particularly how to specify its dependencies and the computing environment it needed to run in; and it also certainly wasn't going to appear in any form that was convenient to review if I did.
How could you submit code to blind review anyway? Do you make alternate versions of all the dependencies that don't credit any authors that overlap with the authors of the paper?
In short, because of blind review, I was forbidden from doing anything that would make my paper reproducible at review time.