shorts/quickcheck.tex

   1 %&pre
   2 \title{QuickCheck: A Lightweight Tool for Random Testing of Haskell Programs}
   3 \date{2016{-}04{-}20}
   4 \begin{document}
   5 \maketitle
   6 \subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
   7 %Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
   8 Claessen and Hughes intruduce an automatic test tool for \emph{Haskell} that
   9 can test if functions adhere to certain properties. Quickcheck is lightweight
  10 and applies random testing. The properties are functions themselves.
  11
  12 %Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
  13 Evidence for the claim is shown by examples and by explaining the usage of the
  14 library. Elements such as parametricity, testcase generators, handling infinite
  15 lists, object size bounds and function generation. Furthermore the case is
  16 strengthed by some case studies. Most notably the case studies where
  17 \emph{Quickcheck} show to be more powerfull then theorem proving because there
  18 is no limitation of first order logic.
  19
  20 \subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
  21 %Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
  22 The paper is extremely easy and well written, there are ample examples and case
  23 studies that prove the point being made. The authors are also aware of the
  24 weaknesses and the discussion section is very verbose because of that.
  25
  26 %Weaknesses
  27 The sheer amount of case studies can be a small obstacle for a reader that
  28 wants a quick tour instead of the full tour.
  29
  30 \subsubsection*{Evaluation}
  31 %Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
  32 %would you recommend acceptance?)
  33 %Comments on quality of writing
  34 The paper would be a good addition to a functional programming journal
  35 specialized in tools. Since the paper was published in a monthly newsletter
  36 designed to also provide implementations and general-purpose programming
  37 contents this was a suitable place to publish this report.
  38
  39 \subsubsection*{Discussion}
  40 %Queries for discussion
  41 \begin{itemize}
  42         \item The authors combined well founded techniques into a new technique.
  43                 Does it have a significant contribution for a full journal?
  44         \item
  45 \end{itemize}
  46 \end{document}