%&pre
\title{QuickCheck: A Lightweight Tool for Random Testing of Haskell Programs}
-\date{2016{-}04{-}13}
+\date{2016{-}04{-}20}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
Evidence for the claim is shown by examples and by explaining the usage of the
library. Elements such as parametricity, testcase generators, handling infinite
lists, object size bounds and function generation. Furthermore the case is
-strengthed by some case studies.
+strengthed by some case studies. Most notably the case studies where
+\emph{Quickcheck} show to be more powerfull then theorem proving because there
+is no limitation of first order logic.
\subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
%Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
-The paper is extremely easy and well written
+The paper is extremely easy and well written, there are ample examples and case
+studies that prove the point being made. The authors are also aware of the
+weaknesses and the discussion section is very verbose because of that.
%Weaknesses
+The sheer amount of case studies can be a small obstacle for a reader that
+wants a quick tour instead of the full tour.
\subsubsection*{Evaluation}
%Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
%would you recommend acceptance?)
-
%Comments on quality of writing
+The paper would be a good addition to a functional programming journal
+specialized in tools. Since the paper was published in a monthly newsletter
+designed to also provide implementations and general-purpose programming
+contents this was a suitable place to publish this report.
\subsubsection*{Discussion}
%Queries for discussion
\begin{itemize}
+ \item The authors combined well founded techniques into a new technique.
+ Does it have a significant contribution for a full journal?
\item
\end{itemize}
\end{document}
repositories / rsss1516.git / blobdiff