shorts2/maintainable.tex

   1 \documentclass{article}
   2
   3 \usepackage{a4wide}     % For better page usage
   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{Maintainable Software Architecture with Monads, Algebras, and
  16 Categories}
  17 \date{2016{--}05{-}25}
  18
  19 \begin{document}
  20 \maketitle
  21 \subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
  22 %Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
  23 The author describes the experiences and design of a software architecture used
  24 on a university implemented in a functional language. The paper describes the
  25 libraries used, the monadic structure, algebras and categories in order of
  26 appearance. By using the latest techniques the maintainability is kept very
  27 high.
  28
  29 %Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
  30 Evidence is shown by treating all the ideas from the title one by one and
  31 explaining how they work and how the general structure is implemented.
  32 Accompanied with every subject the maintainability is explained and often
  33 compared with design patterns from Object Oriented programming.
  34
  35 \subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
  36 %Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
  37 The strength of the paper is the ease of reading. One by one the authors
  38 address the keywords from the title and elaborate on the usage. There are also
  39 comparisons shown with Object Oriented programming
  40
  41 %Weaknesses
  42 The paper is not really academic and does not represent a new idea. This is not
  43 a very big weakness regarding the setting in which the paper was written.
  44 Moreover the discussion section is not really discussing the contents of the
  45 paper but telling that Object Oriented programmers have a big interest in
  46 Functional Programming but usually do not know where to start.
  47
  48 \subsubsection*{Evaluation}
  49 %Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
  50 %would you recommend acceptance?)
  51 Taking into account that the paper is an experience report it did a good job.
  52 The goal of the paper was to elaborate on the experiences in maintaining a big
  53 software project in a functional language and it did a well illustrating
  54 that. The paper would not be suitable in any other setting since it is not very
  55 academic.
  56
  57 %Comments on quality of writing
  58 The writing style is good and it is readable by anyone with even a shallow
  59 knowledge of functional programming. The paper is well embedded in the
  60 literature even though it is only an experience report.
  61
  62 \subsubsection*{Discussion}
  63 %Queries for discussion
  64 \begin{itemize}
  65         \item Although the paper is very short there should be less unnecessary
  66                 implementation.
  67         \item The discussion should contain more discussion on the contents.
  68         \item The paper should show the advantages over Object Oriented programming
  69                 instead of just showing the possibilities in Functional programming.
  70 \end{itemize}
  71
  72 \end{document}