5 ms·

> folks who practice the craft so in that sense it is not research I "practice the craft" (and I'm fully, gainfully, highly employed to practice the craft), I

> folks who practice the craft so in that sense it is not research I "practice the craft" (and I'm fully, gainfully, highly employed to practice the craft), I have a PhD in the "craft", I have published papers about the "craft", and I'm here to tell you IDGAF about what's terminologically research and what's not. I only care about well-written, detailed articles that explain a complex technical issue, problem, or solution.

pizlonator 2y ago
There are lots of well written detailed articles that don’t call themselves research.
- almostgotcaught 2y ago
  There are also lots of horribly written, superficial articles that do call themselves research. Hence my overarching point: let's quit with the dog and pony show. EDIT: "Research is 'creative and systematic work undertaken to increase the stock of knowledge'. It involves the collection, organization, and analysis of evidence to increase understanding of a topic, characterized by a particular attentiveness to controlling sources of bias and error." The crucial/key words/phrases here are: "systematic", "increase understanding of a topic", "controlling sources of bias and error". Nowhere do I see "completely brand new never before heard of". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research EDIT2: > It’s a terminology issue for me. PLDI, the premier compilers/PL conference, which you must put a lot of stock in since you care about the current institutionally supported notion of "research", disagrees with you.
  - pizlonator 2y ago
    I don’t put any stock in PLDI. I’ve been published there, twice, but academic understanding of PL implementation is probably at least a decade (if not more) behind where the top folks in industry are. If you’re good at abstract interpretation, IR design, GC, etc then you’re going to be making good money and having a blast shipping that shit to people, usually in some open source context with a friendly and nontoxic community around you. So much better than the hatchet-job style reviewing and publish-or-perish of the PLDI crew.
    - almostgotcaught 2y ago
      > I’ve been published there, twice, but academic understanding of PL implementation is probably at least a decade (if not more) behind where the top folks in industry are. My friend you're just driving more nails into your own coffin; yes I'm very well aware of this and hence all the more reason to dispense with the idea that what PLDI publishes needs to be cutting edge novelty. > So much better than the hatchet-job style reviewing and publish-or-perish of the PLDI crew. Again: you're literally contradicting yourself. The reason PLDI and all other "top" venues are so toxic is because of people like you on review committees that demand utmost novelty. Relax your requirements (i.e. encourage them to relax their requirements) and you will magically transform academic research into a fun, friendly, and vibrant community.
      - pizlonator 2y ago
        I’m not on the PLDI review committee. Haven’t ever been.
        almostgotcaught 2y ago
        > i.e. encourage them to relax their requirements

pizlonator 2y ago

There are lots of well written detailed articles that don’t call themselves research.

almostgotcaught 2y ago
There are also lots of horribly written, superficial articles that do call themselves research. Hence my overarching point: let's quit with the dog and pony show. EDIT: "Research is 'creative and systematic work undertaken to increase the stock of knowledge'. It involves the collection, organization, and analysis of evidence to increase understanding of a topic, characterized by a particular attentiveness to controlling sources of bias and error." The crucial/key words/phrases here are: "systematic", "increase understanding of a topic", "controlling sources of bias and error". Nowhere do I see "completely brand new never before heard of". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research EDIT2: > It’s a terminology issue for me. PLDI, the premier compilers/PL conference, which you must put a lot of stock in since you care about the current institutionally supported notion of "research", disagrees with you.
- pizlonator 2y ago
  I don’t put any stock in PLDI. I’ve been published there, twice, but academic understanding of PL implementation is probably at least a decade (if not more) behind where the top folks in industry are. If you’re good at abstract interpretation, IR design, GC, etc then you’re going to be making good money and having a blast shipping that shit to people, usually in some open source context with a friendly and nontoxic community around you. So much better than the hatchet-job style reviewing and publish-or-perish of the PLDI crew.
  - almostgotcaught 2y ago
    > I’ve been published there, twice, but academic understanding of PL implementation is probably at least a decade (if not more) behind where the top folks in industry are. My friend you're just driving more nails into your own coffin; yes I'm very well aware of this and hence all the more reason to dispense with the idea that what PLDI publishes needs to be cutting edge novelty. > So much better than the hatchet-job style reviewing and publish-or-perish of the PLDI crew. Again: you're literally contradicting yourself. The reason PLDI and all other "top" venues are so toxic is because of people like you on review committees that demand utmost novelty. Relax your requirements (i.e. encourage them to relax their requirements) and you will magically transform academic research into a fun, friendly, and vibrant community.
    - pizlonator 2y ago
      I’m not on the PLDI review committee. Haven’t ever been.
      - almostgotcaught 2y ago
        > i.e. encourage them to relax their requirements