From c883cd7c49593520e11319e218828545ec5f4463 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mart Lubbers Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:28:13 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] finished short paper --- shorts2/maintainable.tex | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/shorts2/maintainable.tex b/shorts2/maintainable.tex index 99b8eac..fb9791e 100644 --- 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} -- 2.20.1