3 ms·
Note that the claims in that abstract were retracted because the authors messed up when benchmarking. Note the changed title and abstract here: https://cseweb.
by tokenrove 8y ago
Note that the claims in that abstract were retracted because the authors messed up when benchmarking. Note the changed title and abstract here: https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~lerner/papers/fp-printing-popl16.pdf https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~lerner/papers/fp-printing-popl16.pd...
- simonbyrne 8y agoIt is really annoying that CS conference proceedings don’t have a mechanism for retraction or post-publication errata.
- marcandrysco 8y agoWe were able to update the paper on the ACM website: https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2837654 https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2837654, although looking at it now, they did not update the title. I'll see if they can fix that. There is very exciting news coming up with printing floating point. Ulf Adams from Google will be presenting a new algorithm called Ryu that appears to be super fast, simple, and perfectly accurate. Assuming the claims are correct, Ryu ought displace all of the current algorithms.
- simonbyrne 8y agoThanks! My comment was not meant as a criticism of your work (I still like the paper, and do appreciate that you went to the effort of putting the amended results online), but more of the CS conference publishing model. I look forward to reading the Ryu paper.