Re:No Paper Is That Good
by coldtea on Saturday July 14, 2018 @04:28AM
(#17529398)
>Nonsense. Plenty of old computer science papers don't hold up well to scrutiny or are largely irrelevant nowadays
Nonsense, knee-jerk answer.
First, we don't need all of them to "hold up well to scrutiny" but just 2 (as per TFA challenge). And we have way more than just 2 -- hundreds of great papers.
Second, the papers "that were trying to optimize for bottlenecks in hardware that no longer exist or have shifted to different places" can still be perfectly valid as per the challenge we have, which was:
1) that they were not "full of mistakes and bad reasoning",
2) that they did not "contain little or no original work" (and where thus just references and meta-papers)
The question wasn't if we have "plenty of" papers that are bad, or plenty of papers that were very good but have been super-ceded by changes in technology.
Just that we have at least 2 (and I argue we have way more than two) seminal papers that have original work, and are not full of mistakes and bad reasoning.
Nonsense, knee-jerk answer.
First, we don't need all of them to "hold up well to scrutiny" but just 2 (as per TFA challenge). And we have way more than just 2 -- hundreds of great papers.
Second, the papers "that were trying to optimize for bottlenecks in hardware that no longer exist or have shifted to different places" can still be perfectly valid as per the challenge we have, which was:
1) that they were not "full of mistakes and bad reasoning", 2) that they did not "contain little or no original work" (and where thus just references and meta-papers)
The question wasn't if we have "plenty of" papers that are bad, or plenty of papers that were very good but have been super-ceded by changes in technology.
Just that we have at least 2 (and I argue we have way more than two) seminal papers that have original work, and are not full of mistakes and bad reasoning.