added redblack

diff --git a/shorts/Makefile b/shorts/Makefile
index d507164..b3b7fdc 100644 (file)
--- a/shorts/Makefile
+++ b/shorts/Makefile
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 LATEX:=pdflatex
-DOCUMENTS:=yesterday data_types why_functional theorems quickcheck
+DOCUMENTS:=yesterday data_types why_functional theorems quickcheck redblack
 
 .SECONDARY: pre.fmt
 

diff --git a/shorts/quickcheck.tex b/shorts/quickcheck.tex
index 9c26650..e342bb9 100644 (file)
--- a/shorts/quickcheck.tex
+++ b/shorts/quickcheck.tex
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 %&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}
@@ -13,23 +13,34 @@ and applies random testing. The properties are functions themselves.
 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}

diff --git a/shorts/redblack.tex b/shorts/redblack.tex
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..b767fd8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/shorts/redblack.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+%&pre
+\title{Red-black trees in a functional setting}
+\date{2016{-}04{-}20}
+\begin{document}
+\maketitle
+\subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
+%Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
+Okasaki presents a self-proclaimed dead simple algorithm for rebalancing
+Red-black trees.
+
+%Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
+As evidence Okasaki provides all the tree operations one by one, starting with
+the easiest ones. The balance function is implemented in a slightly different
+way. This is possible because of properties of functional languages.
+
+\subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
+%Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
+The paper is clear and straight to the point
+
+%Weaknesses
+
+\subsubsection*{Evaluation}
+%Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
+%would you recommend acceptance?)
+The paper was published in \emph{Functional Pearls} for which it is suitable.
+The paper is way too short and shallow to be published in a regular journal
+concerning the topic. It would also suit a summer school. Students can think
+about the problem tackled in an hour or two.
+
+%Comments on quality of writing
+The paper is very short and quite some popular language is used.
+
+\subsubsection*{Discussion}
+%Queries for discussion
+\begin{itemize}
+       \item 
+\end{itemize}
+\end{document}

diff --git a/shorts/theorems.tex b/shorts/theorems.tex
index 56d53bd..4956fd1 100644 (file)
--- a/shorts/theorems.tex
+++ b/shorts/theorems.tex
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 %&pre
 \title{Theorems for free!}
-\date{2016{-}04{-}13}
+\date{2016{-}04{-}20}
 \begin{document}
 \maketitle
 \subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}