up

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..9c0731b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+all:
+       make -C long
+       make -C shorts
+
+clean:
+       make -C long clean
+       make -C shorts clean

diff --git a/long1/Makefile b/long/Makefile
similarity index 100%
rename from long1/Makefile
rename to long/Makefile

diff --git a/long1/clean.sty b/long/clean.sty
similarity index 100%
rename from long1/clean.sty
rename to long/clean.sty

diff --git a/long1/long.tex b/long/long.tex
similarity index 100%
rename from long1/long.tex
rename to long/long.tex

diff --git a/long1/pre.tex b/long/pre.tex
similarity index 100%
rename from long1/pre.tex
rename to long/pre.tex

diff --git a/shorts1/Makefile b/shorts/Makefile
similarity index 100%
rename from shorts1/Makefile
rename to shorts/Makefile

diff --git a/shorts1/data_types.tex b/shorts/data_types.tex
similarity index 100%
rename from shorts1/data_types.tex
rename to shorts/data_types.tex

diff --git a/shorts1/pre.tex b/shorts/pre.tex
similarity index 100%
rename from shorts1/pre.tex
rename to shorts/pre.tex

diff --git a/shorts/why_functional.tex b/shorts/why_functional.tex
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..4626569
--- /dev/null
+++ b/shorts/why_functional.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+%&pre
+\title{Why functional programming matters}
+\date{2016{--}03{--}22}
+\begin{document}
+\maketitle
+\subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
+%Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
+Hughes shows that because modularity is the key to successful programming
+functional programming offers advantages. Modularity in functional programming
+is easily achieved through higher-order functions and lazy evaluation.
+
+%Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
+Evidence is given by walking the reader through increasingly complex
+algorithmic implementations in a functional language. By doing so the ease of
+using higher-order functions and lazy evaluation in functional languages
+becomes clear.
+
+\subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
+%Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
+The paper is extremely readable and presents a solid case. Step by step the
+reader is submerged in higher order functions and abstract functional
+programming concepts.
+
+%Weaknesses
+A weakness is the fact that the paper is not well embedded in existing
+literature. A meager six references are used. Also the paper shows the strength
+of modularity in measures of writing elegant code and implementing elegant
+algorithms but not in terms of speed
+
+\subsubsection*{Evaluation}
+%Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
+%would you recommend acceptance?)
+I would advise to publish the paper in a general computer science journal. The
+paper does not delve very deep in the matter and people already familiar to
+functional programming might find the contents trivial and self-evident.
+
+%Comments on quality of writing
+The quality of writing is very high. The structure is clear and the paper is
+very readable, even without domain knowledge.
+
+\subsubsection*{Discussion}
+%Queries for discussion
+\begin{itemize}
+       \item The paper is only showing the aesthetic superiority. Is it also fast?
+       \item How does this scale?
+       \item Does this also scale for algorithms that use memory?
+\end{itemize}
+\end{document}

diff --git a/shorts1/yesterday.tex b/shorts/yesterday.tex
similarity index 100%
rename from shorts1/yesterday.tex
rename to shorts/yesterday.tex

diff --git a/shorts1/why_functional.tex b/shorts1/why_functional.tex
deleted file mode 100644 (file)
index ec12749..0000000
--- a/shorts1/why_functional.tex
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,27 +0,0 @@
-%&pre
-\title{Why functional programming matters}
-\date{2016{--}03{--}22}
-\begin{document}
-\maketitle
-\subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
-%Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
-
-%Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
-
-\subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
-%Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
-
-%Weaknesses
-
-\subsubsection*{Evaluation}
-%Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
-%would you recommend acceptance?)
-
-%Comments on quality of writing
-
-\subsubsection*{Discussion}
-%Queries for discussion
-\begin{itemize}
-       \item
-\end{itemize}
-\end{document}