I don't know what's objectively "correct", but my favorite CS papers are the ones that try and be more entertaining to read. Stuff like "Cheney on the MTA", or

I don't know what's objectively "correct", but my favorite CS papers are the ones that try and be more entertaining to read. Stuff like "Cheney on the MTA", or the "Lambda the Ultimate" papers are fun to read, while still dumping a lot of interesting information. I also think Lamports papers tend to be more fun simply because they use more tangible analogies for things rather than sticking with formalized mathematics. I kind of view the overly dry, super-formal math/CS papers to be almost a form of gatekeeping. There's a lot of really useful information in a lot of papers, but people don't read them because they rely on a lot of formalisms and notation that are pretty dry to learn about. Sure, I know what a "comonad" and "endofunctor" is, and using terms like that can be useful, but I also think that it can sometimes be better to take a simpler, more grounded approach to things, or at least work with metaphors.