6 ms·
First time I hear of this, but one issue is that they've reviewed a pretty overwhelming number of papers, which dilutes their impact. In general, practitioners
by pyb 2y ago
First time I hear of this, but one issue is that they've reviewed a pretty overwhelming number of papers, which dilutes their impact.
In general, practitioners would be interested in hearing from advances in academia, but usually don't want to read papers. Building fully working systems - programming languages or libraries - is more impactful, but much higher-effort.
- cratermoon 2y ago> practitioners would be interested in hearing from advances in academia, but usually don't want to read papers. Building fully working systems Isn't that kind of the whole problem? Practitioners ignoring research results because all they want to look at is what other practitioners do? Or are you really suggesting that researchers also become practitioners who develop working systems based on the ideas they discover? Perhaps I'm misreading, but your statement seems to encapsulate the entire problem the article is highlighting.
- pyb 2y agoResearchers should become practictioners to some extent, if they want their ideas to spread. Example : Donald Knuth and TeX. Racket programming language. etc... Of course in this publish-or-perish era, this is probably no longer possible.