I have not said that reproducing a result is pointless or impractical. If you are a computational biologist, you will surely know that there are endless bench marking papers comparing published methods for sequence alignment, variant calling, differential expression, genome reconstruction, phylogeny reconstruction, cell segmentation etc etc. You will also know that if a methodology for producing a result is obscure, it will not be repeated or cited much, and a re-implementation of the method that is accessible will easily over take it. Published data sets are also endlessly re-analysed. If someone publishes a paper that is code heavy without any code, then they get chewed out on twitter or at conferences (rightly so). Top tier journals have also started requiring publication of custom code.
My argument is that a 'reproducibility project' of the kind described above is pointless and impractical. I do not see evidence that this project has taught us anything.