%&pre
\title{Data types \`a la carte}
\date{2016{-}03{-}16}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
%Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
The paper provides a method of data types, functions and monads of a restricted
kind to create more flexible representations. It shows that by using
co-products and type constraint type-constructors one can combine individual
parts and using this technology one can create less monolithic monads that
better reveal the functionality and purpose.

%Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
Usefulness and proofs are given by tackling several classical problems in pure
functional languages such as the expression problem, input/output and the
problem of a having a global state. In these problems the function signatures
are different compared to the classical monadic approach. The function
signature reveals more about the semantics and thus gives more clarity about
the function. 

\subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
%Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
As many other papers within this field of research the power of the introduced
techniques is shown by tackling classical problems. Researchers from the field
are likely to be already familiar with said problems. In that way immediately
the practicality of the techniques become clear.

%Weaknesses
In contrast the paper is very complex and introduces a lot of new abstractions
notations and functions which makes the paper a tough read if you are not
already deep in the materials. A lot of abbreviations are used which are not
properly explained that could lead to confusion and the obligation to reread
the parts several times to figure out the meaning.

\subsubsection*{Evaluation}
%Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
%would you recommend acceptance?)
The paper would be a good addition to very specific functional programming
conferences or journal. I would not advise to publish this in a general
theoretical computer science journal because of the weaknesses described above.

%Comments on quality of writing
Concerning quality of writing; it requires quite some background knowledge to
read the paper but the author managed to have a good build-up to the
technicalities. Moreover, it is embedded well in the literature.

\subsubsection*{Discussion}
%Queries for discussion
\begin{itemize}
	\item Why is the representation really a saviour for the monolithic IO
		monad. The regular approach does not have that much overhead.
	\item Since free monads are not widespread and mostly only known in
		category theory. Do we really have a useful application? Are the monads
		who really need such a restructuring unsuitable for it?
\end{itemize}
\end{document}
