这个问题来自于对过去50年左右计算领域各种进展的评论。
其他一些与会者请我把这个问题作为一个问题向整个论坛提出。
这里的基本思想不是抨击事物的现状，而是试图理解提出基本新思想和原则的过程。
我认为我们在大多数计算领域都需要真正的新想法，我想知道最近已经完成的任何重要而有力的想法。如果我们真的找不到他们，那么我们应该问“为什么?”和“我们应该做什么?”
当前回答
自然语言处理。我第一次遇到这种情况是在20世纪90年代初，当时使用的是赛门铁克(Symantec)的一个名为Q&A的程序，它允许您通过键入英文查询来查询数据库。直到今天，我仍然对它印象深刻。
其他回答
Paxos协议。很难描述它在互联网时代的价值。
我们需要的是重组，而不是再造。
我们现在拥有所有我们需要的硬件和软件组件，在未来几年里做一些令人惊叹的事情。
我相信科学中有一种疾病，参与者总是试图发明一些新的东西来区别于别人。这与做一些编目或教授旧作品的混乱工作形成了鲜明对比。
建造“新”东西的人通常被认为比重用现有的和几乎古老的作品的人有更高的血统。(对于一个20岁的年轻人来说，Lisp的开发时间是他们生命的两倍还多。1958)
好的旧想法需要复活并广泛传播，我们需要停止试图建立企业或程序员运动，有效地践踏旧的作品和系统，在权力游戏中成为下一个新事物——事实上，大多数“新的闪亮”事物只是旧想法复活的方面。
bt。它完全颠覆了以前看似显而易见的不可改变的规则——一个人通过互联网下载一个文件所需的时间与下载该文件的人数成正比。它还解决了以前的点对点解决方案的缺陷，特别是围绕着“吸血”，以一种有机的解决方案本身的方式。
BitTorrent优雅地将通常的缺点——许多用户试图同时下载一个文件——转变为优点，将文件在地理位置上分发，这是下载过程的自然组成部分。它优化两个对等点之间带宽使用的策略不鼓励作为副作用的“吸血”——强制节流符合所有参与者的最佳利益。
这是一种一旦被别人发明出来，即使不明显，也似乎很简单的想法。
如果我们作为一个团体认真地回答这个问题。 不幸的是，我相信我们需要的不仅仅是一串随机的善意的帖子! 我知道，这听起来很无聊，但经常把事情做完才是!
We Write a list of powerful ideas in the area of computing Maybe we should define a few categories to separate each one because videoconference somehow does not fit well with object oriented programming. Seeing ideas by categories makes it easier to generate them without redundancy. It's too easy to sidetrack in teleportation if quantum computing is not kept away from flying cars. Try to attribute each of them a date This will settle the before/after 1980 and restrict debate about each idea to its own. It will be fun to dig for earliest reference, first known implementation, etc. Plus this will allow people like me who were 2 years old in 1980 to have a better idea of what was common programming knowledge in 1980 (nothing beats being there at the time) Try to attribute each of them the current state of their implementation Ok, some idea were sci-fi in 1850, with early development in the 1970 and serious improvement breakthrough in the 1990. Some ideas are just starting to get around. Some are almost forgotten. Probably the wiki thing is a good idea. I think this could really get somewhere if slightly organized. I did not check, but maybe this whole thing already exist already on the net (I usually find that if you think about something, someone already did it). What do you think ? Cheers !
这是一个消极的结果，作为一个“基础创新”很奇怪，但我认为适用，因为它开辟了新的研究领域，关闭了无用的领域。
分配共识的不可能性:2001年PODC影响力论文奖
We assumed that the main value of our impossibility result was to close off unproductive lines of research on trying to find fault-tolerant consensus algorithms. But much to our surprise, it opened up entirely new lines of research. There has been analysis of exactly what assumptions about the distributed system model are needed for the impossibility proof. Many related distributed problems to which the proof also applies have been found, together with seemingly similar problems which do have solutions. Eventually a long line of research developed in which primitives were classified based on their ability to implement wait-free fault-tolerant consensus.
