I never understand why the Hudson river is used as an example of amazing/difficult decision making.
Loss of thrust in both engines means you will be touching the ground/water in about as many nautical miles as twice your height in 1,000s of feet. So for the Hudson river case about six miles. Were they within six miles of a runway? No. So it will be an off runway ditching/forced landing. Anyone who takes off over a large city or hazardous terrain will/should have thought about what they'd do in case of a forced landing at various heights. Hell, we even give it a whirl in the sim for a bit of fun at the end of the session.
Over a massive conurbation with a long and wide river running through it which option do you take? Crashing into a city or ditch in the river? Again, this is not a tricky question.
As for actually flying the Airbus into the water; Sully had full backstick maintained all the way down below about 100ft and as a result could not flare to reduce the descent rate at impact. See section 2.3.3 of the NTSB report. In essence, normal law of the Airbus did what it was designed to do - max alpha until impact.
Are you saying a computer could not be programmed with some basic rules to perform similarly and perhaps better? And I am not denigrating or taking away from what Sully and his crew did on that day whatsoever.