shorts2/batchers.tex

   1 \documentclass{article}
   2
   3 \usepackage[a4paper]{geometry}
   4 \usepackage{hyperref}
   5
   6 \hypersetup{%
   7         pdfauthor={Mart Lubbers},
   8         pdfsubject={Short review},
   9         pdfcreator={Mart Lubbers},
  10         pdfproducer={Mart Lubbers},
  11         hidelinks
  12 }
  13
  14 \author{Mart Lubbers (s4109503)}
  15 \title{Batcher's Odd-Even Merging Network Revealed}
  16 \date{2016{--}06{-}01}
  17
  18 \begin{document}
  19 \maketitle
  20 \subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
  21 %Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
  22 This \emph{Functional Pearl} shows that using tools from functional programming
  23 the underlying semantics and meaning of the classic \emph{Batcher's Merging
  24 Network} can be revealed very easily without the use of ample indexing.
  25
  26 %Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
  27 Step by step the author guides the reader through theory to finally reach the
  28 real implementation of the peculiar sorting network. When the final
  29 implementation is presented properties can be proven very easily.
  30
  31 \subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
  32 %Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
  33 The final implementation is very elegant and short. The reader is prepared very
  34 thoroughly before it reaches the real implementation. Moreover the pearl is
  35 just about the right size for one. The number of pages is a bit more then usual
  36 but there are a lot of diagrams that stretch the pagenumber.
  37
  38 %Weaknesses
  39 However it heavily depends on so called \emph{clean} functions which are not
  40 very trivial at first. Also the author takes a lot of detours to get to the
  41 solution. While some of the detours are necessary a lot of them could be
  42 formulated somewhat shorter to not confuse the reader.
  43
  44 \subsubsection*{Evaluation}
  45 %Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
  46 %would you recommend acceptance?)
  47 I would accept the paper under the condition that the author takes a good look
  48 at the detours and then decides whether they can be formulated more succinct or
  49 maybe even omitted.
  50
  51 %Comments on quality of writing
  52 The quality of writing is very good. The paper is well structured besides the
  53 detours. There are a lot of fancy operators used which makes the code not
  54 usable without a small modification.
  55
  56 \subsubsection*{Discussion}
  57 %Queries for discussion
  58 \begin{itemize}
  59         \item There are too many detours in the paper.
  60         \item The pearl is not really a general solution but a specific one for a
  61                 specific problem.
  62 \end{itemize}
  63
  64 \end{document}