shorts/redblack.tex

   1 %&pre
   2 \title{Red-black trees in a functional setting}
   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 Okasaki presents a self-proclaimed dead simple algorithm for rebalancing
   9 Red-black trees.
  10
  11 %Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
  12 As evidence Okasaki provides all the tree operations one by one, starting with
  13 the easiest ones. The balance function is implemented in a slightly different
  14 way. This is possible because of properties of functional languages.
  15
  16 \subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
  17 %Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
  18 The paper is clear and straight to the point. It takes the reader by the hand.
  19
  20 %Weaknesses
  21 On the other side the paper is very brief and could be considered shallow
  22 because of the lack of contents.
  23
  24 \subsubsection*{Evaluation}
  25 %Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
  26 %would you recommend acceptance?)
  27 The paper was published in \emph{Functional Pearls} for which it is suitable.
  28 The paper is way too short and shallow to be published in a regular journal
  29 concerning the topic. It would also suit a summer school. Students can think
  30 about the problem tackled in an hour or two.
  31
  32 %Comments on quality of writing
  33 The paper is very short and quite some popular language is used.
  34
  35 \subsubsection*{Discussion}
  36 %Queries for discussion
  37 \begin{itemize}
  38         \item Is the paper too shallow?
  39         \item Should benchmarks be added?
  40 \end{itemize}
  41 \end{document}