4 ms·
> Ask yourself, how many of those talks in day 1, have accompanying code? is it even 25%? 57 out of 93 papers (61%) published at POPL 24 have an artifact avail
by JW_00000 2y ago
> Ask yourself, how many of those talks in day 1, have accompanying code? is it even 25%?
57 out of 93 papers (61%) published at POPL 24 have an artifact available. Note that this may also be automated proofs etc, it's not necessarily "running code".
But I also think focusing on POPL as a representation of the PL community isn't entirely fair. POPL is the primary conference focused on type systems within the PL community. It's a niche within a niche. Conferences like OOPSLA, ECOOP, or ICFP are much broader and much less likely to be so focused on mathematical proofs.
[1] https://dl.acm.org/toc/pacmpl/2024/8/POPL https://dl.acm.org/toc/pacmpl/2024/8/POPL
- sashank_1509 2y agoI asked Claude to go through all paper names and estimate how many have code vs how many are proofs: “Based on my analysis, I estimate: - ~35-40 papers (roughly 35%) likely have significant accompanying code - ~55-60 papers (roughly 65%) are primarily theoretical/mathematical proofs “ I suspect even the remaining 35% doesn’t have much to do with programming languages, and I don’t think these stats change much for other conferences.
- JW_00000 2y ago> I don’t think these stats change much for other conferences. I'd severely doubt that: there is a large difference in focus on theory vs practice between conferences. POPL really is one of the more theoretical conferences. At a conference like ECOOP, you're unlikely to see many proofs (I'd guess at most 20% of papers, based on personal experience).
- sashank_1509 2y agoI did the same thing for ECOOP 2024: https://2024.ecoop.org/track/ecoop-2024-papers#program https://2024.ecoop.org/track/ecoop-2024-papers#program Claude estimates 10 papers related programming languages and its features and 27 related to theory, verification etc.