Data is the plural of datum so using the verb in the plural is arguably not wrong. I wouldn't use it like that but I think in certain Englishes it's acceptable (British?). Some mass singular nouns in British English idiomatically take plural verbs as well, e.g. the police are.

> That said, I love how open the astronomy community is with their code and data. I wish other fields would follow their lead, but given the incentive structure, they probably won't.

CERN also provide a lot of open physics data from various experiments and is keep adding large amount each year [1]. Of course this still a needle in the haystack but still more than any individual researcher can ever process.

[1] https://opendata.cern.ch/

There are quite a few open source projects in astronomy, but in my experience there is a tremendous amount of code that is squirrelled away as it is difficult to reproduce and entrenches peoples positions. I have mixed feelings about this in general, as I understand the incentive structures, but I do wish in general some of the sub fields were a bit more open. I do think things are getting better in general.

Also I fully agree with the "codes" rant.

Source: working professionally in the field for 4 years.

“codes” predates “code (plural)” by a long margin. HPC communities still get it right.

The point of ASCL is around providing a citable reference to the code, independent of the various places it could appear, with minimal effort from researchers. Given it's indexed by NASA ADS, there doesn't seem to be much value in duplicating effort around search, especially when people will go to NASA ADS first anyway.