4 ms·
At a first glance, I wondered if the authors knew OCaml with its Camlp4, which seems to solve exactly that problem. So I immediately got the feeling that they a
by vog 12y ago
At a first glance, I wondered if the authors knew OCaml with its Camlp4, which seems to solve exactly that problem. So I immediately got the feeling that they are just reinventing the wheel.
However, in page 22 they finally provide a short comparison of their approach with Camlp4 and similar mechanisms for other languages. Now, their approach makes a lot more sense to me. I think they should have done this at a more prominent place, e.g. in the abstract or the introduction.
- mpweiher 12y agoThat's sort of how academic papers work. Related work goes into the unsurprisingly named "related work" section, which will almost always be the second to last. So people scanning papers will often use something like the following path: (a) abstract (b) end of 1st section, "contribution of this paper" (c) related work ("do I already know some of this") -> if still looks interesting, read entire paper.
- mjn 12y agoConventions vary by subfield. In my field (AI) it's more common for the related-work section to go up front, as the 2nd section right after the Introduction. You first set up/motivate/preview what you're going to do, then you survey what's already been done in this area, and then you present your own advance, once you've laid the groundwork for how you're either building on, or diverging from, the current state-of-the-art. Sometimes it does read better to put it 2nd-to-last, but IME that's less common in AI. (To make sure I'm not completely misremembering, I spot-checked 5 random papers from this year's AAAI proceedings [1], and 5/5 had the Related Work section up front.) [1] http://www.aaai.org/Library/AAAI/aaai14contents.php http://www.aaai.org/Library/AAAI/aaai14contents.php