HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

⬐ flashgordon

So. I tried reading the top 100 papers in PL. Topic was so huge I had to settle on top 100 papers on language front ends. Even this was so huge I ended up settling 100 papers on parsing theory (this is really fascinating and still not a solved topic!!).

I guess how do you read 100 top papers of all time and walk away with anything substantial/meaningful beyond bragging rights?

⬐ aaron695

None

⬐ fastasucan

Exactly. I feel this akin to rushing through the "100 best books", only worse. Quality+quantity only works if you have a lot of time.

⬐ wrycoder

Nature artice: The Top 100 Papers https://www.nature.com/news/the-top-100-papers-1.16224

⬐ trinovantes

Not too surprised the top (cited) papers are mostly about processes

"During a gold rush, sell shovels"

⬐ trash3

If McClintock s papers on corn transposons is not on the list of papers you can be sure it's bunk

⬐ zvr

Needs a "(video)" in the title

⬐ Rochus

Good to know.

⬐ lifeisstillgood

The fascinating part is papers like Realtivity just don't get the citations so they don't get into the top 100 - if you work out the 100 by citations.

Fascinated to see if there is a list of "the 25 scientific papers you must read before you die" - much like the list of films Empire will publish etc.

If I put 90 minutes into a paper as often as I do into a movie I might actually know something :-)

⬐ rsfern

Another commenter linked a nature article with the top 100 papers by citation, and they start by pointing out that a bunch of Nobel-winning work didn’t make the list

I think the Nobel list would be a different sort than your 25 must read list, but maybe it’s a good place to start

⬐ lifeisstillgood

Yeah the video itself pointed out that using citations was not perfect.

And yes, the nobel winning papers for the last century will be interesting too.