If you - like me - buy into the idea that the real "inventor" of something is the person who explained it so well that it never needed to be invented again, then you can make a pretty compelling argument that there are entire fields of computation, tools and algorithms that are widely used right now, that still haven't been invented yet.
And I mean, there's some epistemological hurfdurfing to be had in that argument, sure, but I think it suggests something deeper and maybe both more sinister and more optimistic, that we're missing a more fundamental shared language underpinning these tools that we need for these "inventions" to be fully manifest. Pseudocode isn't it, academic publications trapped in their own discourse-incentive isolate, aren't it.
@mhoye It also potentially means there's still time to prevent some of them being invented.
(again, in sinister or optimistic aspect)