From cb812e3f4be13e93af15aac8a219312c96b7bccc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mart Lubbers Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:57:43 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] up --- Makefile | 7 +++++ {long1 => long}/Makefile | 0 {long1 => long}/clean.sty | 0 {long1 => long}/long.tex | 0 {long1 => long}/pre.tex | 0 {shorts1 => shorts}/Makefile | 0 {shorts1 => shorts}/data_types.tex | 0 {shorts1 => shorts}/pre.tex | 0 shorts/why_functional.tex | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ {shorts1 => shorts}/yesterday.tex | 0 shorts1/why_functional.tex | 27 ----------------- 11 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) create mode 100644 Makefile rename {long1 => long}/Makefile (100%) rename {long1 => long}/clean.sty (100%) rename {long1 => long}/long.tex (100%) rename {long1 => long}/pre.tex (100%) rename {shorts1 => shorts}/Makefile (100%) rename {shorts1 => shorts}/data_types.tex (100%) rename {shorts1 => shorts}/pre.tex (100%) create mode 100644 shorts/why_functional.tex rename {shorts1 => shorts}/yesterday.tex (100%) delete mode 100644 shorts1/why_functional.tex diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile new file mode 100644 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 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 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} -- 2.20.1