finished short paper

diff --git a/shorts2/maintainable.tex b/shorts2/maintainable.tex
index 99b8eac..fb9791e 100644 (file)
--- a/shorts2/maintainable.tex
+++ b/shorts2/maintainable.tex
@@ -21,30 +21,52 @@ Categories}
 \subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
 %Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
 The author describes the experiences and design of a software architecture used
-on a university implemented in Haskell. The paper describes the libraries used,
-the monadic structure, algebras and categories in order of appearance. By using
-the latest techniques the maintainability is kept very high.
+on a university implemented in a functional language. The paper describes the
+libraries used, the monadic structure, algebras and categories in order of
+appearance. By using the latest techniques the maintainability is kept very
+high.
 
 %Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
-
+Evidence is shown by treating all the ideas from the title one by one and
+explaining how they work and how the general structure is implemented.
+Accompanied with every subject the maintainability is explained and often
+compared with design patterns from Object Oriented programming.
 
 \subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
 %Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
+The strength of the paper is the ease of reading. One by one the authors
+address the keywords from the title and elaborate on the usage. There are also
+comparisons shown with Object Oriented programming
 
 %Weaknesses
+The paper is not really academic and does not represent a new idea. This is not
+a very big weakness regarding the setting in which the paper was written.
+Moreover the discussion section is not really discussing the contents of the
+paper but telling that Object Oriented programmers have a big interest in
+Functional Programming but usually do not know where to start.
 
 \subsubsection*{Evaluation}
 %Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
 %would you recommend acceptance?)
+Taking into account that the paper is an experience report it did a good job.
+The goal of the paper was to elaborate on the experiences in maintaining a big
+software project in a functional language and it did a well illustrating
+that. The paper would not be suitable in any other setting since it is not very
+academic.
 
 %Comments on quality of writing
+The writing style is good and it is readable by anyone with even a shallow
+knowledge of functional programming. The paper is well embedded in the
+literature even though it is only an experience report.
 
 \subsubsection*{Discussion}
 %Queries for discussion
 \begin{itemize}
        \item Although the paper is very short there should be less unnecessary
                implementation.
-       \item  
+       \item The discussion should contain more discussion on the contents.
+       \item The paper should show the advantages over Object Oriented programming
+               instead of just showing the possibilities in Functional programming.
 \end{itemize}
 
 \end{document}