> they're alluding to math[1] but they're not doing math. So they're applying the math somebody else already put together? It isn't clear what your opinion is.

> they're alluding to math[1] but they're not doing math. So they're applying the math somebody else already put together? It isn't clear what your opinion is. Are you saying it's not valid if it's not math? Let's judge the paper by what they say they did in the abstract. > We show that synthesizing recursive functional programs using a class of primitive recursive combinators is both simpler and solves more benchmarks from the literature than previously proposed approaches. It sounds like their proposed metrics are subjective ("simpler") or data-oriented ("solves more ... than previously"). > Our method synthesizes paramorphisms, a class of programs that includes the most common recursive programming patterns on algebraic data types. They're applying a pre-existing concept ("paramorphisms") to a problem domain where (it is implied) it either has not been applied before, or with a new spin. > The crux of our approach is to split the synthesis problem into two parts: a multi-hole template that fixes the recursive structure, and a search for non-recursive program fragments to fill the template holes. They give a novel (,it is implied) structural model for solving their problem using their chosen concept as their key contribution to the study of this problem. It is indirectly suggested that factoring the recursive and non-recursive parts apart allows them to be handled more effectively individually. --- Regarding your specific complaints: I do not see any immediate need for new math. Nor are they inventing new words, at least in the title or abstract. You may have legitimate concerns about general academic practice, but if you're going to levy those criticisms at this paper, you could do your arguments better justice than with a drive-by.