4 ms·

This seems overcomplicated. Theoretical computer science papers just write the algorithm in words, using widely accepted mathematical notation wherever they can

This seems overcomplicated. Theoretical computer science papers just write the algorithm in words, using widely accepted mathematical notation wherever they can (e.g. sigma for sums, set notation, and so on).

seanmcdirmid 10y ago
It seems that this isn't for CS paper writing, but for writing pseudocode during design, which needs much more flexibility than communicating results in a POPL paper.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Regular pseudocode, formal specs close to programming (eg VDM language), and graphical stuff like Statecharts worked well in industry for a long time. Including for high-assurance systems where ambiguities lead to catastrophic failure. Middle option was advantageous where it was precise enough for tools to catch errors or prove properties. Any of these worked well enough and didn't look as weird as OP to average programmer.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    Those are fairly established notations that...when hey first came out, weren't as obvious as they appear now. It is unfair to expect that pseudo code notations be static at this point in history when new programming languages that look "weird" pop up all the time.
taeric 10y ago
I've been a huge fan of computer science papers going the literate route. Imagine if more were of the variety of https://smile.amazon.com/dp/0123750792 https://smile.amazon.com/dp/0123750792. Though, I also feel that that adds to the time of creating these papers. So, by my own view this might be more expensive than it is worth.
- argonaut 10y ago
  To be fair, it seems like you linked to a textbook, rather than a paper. Textbooks have different aims than papers (pedagogy vs. succinctly conveying necessary info to an expert in the field)
  - taeric 10y ago
    I'm not sure which direction that takes the "fair" though. I expect textbooks to take a long time to write. Writing a paper that is also executable should be a lot easier than a textbook that is the same. Or, a textbook period. In particular, it saddens me that I can't find any examples of papers that are literate examples. I started dabbling with the idea here[1], but I think I fundamentally misunderstood some of the ideas when I did that. I keep meaning to take up the idea again. I can't deny that it is a slow process, though. [1] http://taeric.github.io/DancingLinks.html http://taeric.github.io/DancingLinks.html
    - argonaut 10y ago
      Nope, writing papers takes longer. The collective amount of time it took to write the papers (I'm not counting the research time) that a textbook is based on, is much greater than the time it takes to write the textbook. Also, there is no incentive because of the reasons I stated (pedagogy to someone new vs. succinct explanation to expert)
      - taeric 10y ago
        I can't claim you are wrong. But this is so non-intuitive to me that it hurts. I get why "covered ground" for text books would be easier to do. But many textbooks should be pushing the field, as well. Right? And I fully note that the book I linked to is exceptional. It won a oscar.[1] And was basically required reading at pixar, if I recall. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d9juPsv1QU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d9juPsv1QU
        argonaut 10y ago

seanmcdirmid 10y ago

It seems that this isn't for CS paper writing, but for writing pseudocode during design, which needs much more flexibility than communicating results in a POPL paper.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
Regular pseudocode, formal specs close to programming (eg VDM language), and graphical stuff like Statecharts worked well in industry for a long time. Including for high-assurance systems where ambiguities lead to catastrophic failure. Middle option was advantageous where it was precise enough for tools to catch errors or prove properties. Any of these worked well enough and didn't look as weird as OP to average programmer.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  Those are fairly established notations that...when hey first came out, weren't as obvious as they appear now. It is unfair to expect that pseudo code notations be static at this point in history when new programming languages that look "weird" pop up all the time.

taeric 10y ago

I've been a huge fan of computer science papers going the literate route. Imagine if more were of the variety of https://smile.amazon.com/dp/0123750792 https://smile.amazon.com/dp/0123750792. Though, I also feel that that adds to the time of creating these papers. So, by my own view this might be more expensive than it is worth.

argonaut 10y ago
To be fair, it seems like you linked to a textbook, rather than a paper. Textbooks have different aims than papers (pedagogy vs. succinctly conveying necessary info to an expert in the field)
- taeric 10y ago
  I'm not sure which direction that takes the "fair" though. I expect textbooks to take a long time to write. Writing a paper that is also executable should be a lot easier than a textbook that is the same. Or, a textbook period. In particular, it saddens me that I can't find any examples of papers that are literate examples. I started dabbling with the idea here[1], but I think I fundamentally misunderstood some of the ideas when I did that. I keep meaning to take up the idea again. I can't deny that it is a slow process, though. [1] http://taeric.github.io/DancingLinks.html http://taeric.github.io/DancingLinks.html
  - argonaut 10y ago
    Nope, writing papers takes longer. The collective amount of time it took to write the papers (I'm not counting the research time) that a textbook is based on, is much greater than the time it takes to write the textbook. Also, there is no incentive because of the reasons I stated (pedagogy to someone new vs. succinct explanation to expert)
    - taeric 10y ago
      I can't claim you are wrong. But this is so non-intuitive to me that it hurts. I get why "covered ground" for text books would be easier to do. But many textbooks should be pushing the field, as well. Right? And I fully note that the book I linked to is exceptional. It won a oscar.[1] And was basically required reading at pixar, if I recall. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d9juPsv1QU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d9juPsv1QU
      - argonaut 10y ago