3 ms·
Yes, but the Paxos paper is the opposite. It read like a silly homily. It's like "why's poignant guide to algorithms" except that the algorithm being described
by CobrastanJorji 7y ago
Yes, but the Paxos paper is the opposite. It read like a silly homily. It's like "why's poignant guide to algorithms" except that the algorithm being described was complex, novel, and incredibly useful. It was so not full of itself that it was ignored for years. It seems to be proof that trying to sound impressive is actually important.
- perennate 7y ago> algorithm being described was complex I'd argue that the algorithm itself is simple, and that the difficult part is understanding why it works (i.e., why it satisfies the safety guarantees). > It seems to be proof that trying to sound impressive is actually important. I agree with this, and would add that making a paper sound impressive rarely conflicts with making it easy to understand. If anything, pointing out the contributions and applications of an approach help readers to understand that approach. At any rate, the same paper made easier to understand will generally be more likely to be accepted.