[Haskell-cafe] Asking for advice on category for a paper for ICFP

[Anton Kholomiov]

Thanks for the answer Richard!
For now I have some guide points and questions to think about.

I did bindings to gloss and brick to elaborate the ideas, and it seems to
be fun to use.
Even if it will get rejected I'll just release it for others.

вт, 1 февр. 2022 г. в 18:56, Richard Eisenberg <lists at richarde.dev>:

> This is a good question, and there's no easy answer. My first impression
> is that a new implementation of an existing idea probably would not qualify
> as a big enough contribution to be accepted at ICFP -- but I don't know FRP
> well enough to really know (and I certainly don't know how impactful your
> new approach is). It's plausible that a new implementation of an existing
> idea would be accepted, but it would have to be pretty thought-provoking. A
> good rule-of-thumb is: if a reader had no particular interest in using your
> implementation or writing their own FRP implementation, is there something
> for them to learn? That is, does your approach generalize to non-FRP tasks?
> Does it use a feature of Haskell or of a lazy programming language or of a
> functional programming language in a new, surprising way? Does your
> approach to analyzing why your implementation is better than others offer
> insight? If the answers to these (or similar) questions is "yes", then
> perhaps a research paper would work.
>
> On the other hand, a key attribute of a functional pearl is its elegance
> and beauty. Does your approach take a knot of complication in other FRP
> implementations and make it go away by construction? Is your approach
> guaranteed faster by some aspect of its design? Would a reader (who doesn't
> know about FRP implementations) read what you've written and smile at the
> ingenuity of it all? Positive answers to these types of question suggest
> that a functional pearl is best.
>
> Sadly, there are many neat ideas that fit neither of these molds --
> implementation-oriented work often doesn't. And, if you don't fit the mold
> of the category you're writing for, your paper may well get rejected, even
> if it's a good contribution. I don't have a solution here; I think this is
> a weakness of the current publication model.
>
> I hope this advice is helpful!
> Richard
>
> > On Feb 1, 2022, at 10:07 AM, Anton Kholomiov <anton.kholomiov at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'm trying to write a paper for ICFP, This is my first paper of this
> kind.
> > Can you please help me to choose the right category for it?
> >
> > The paper is about a novel technique of implementation of FRP.
> > I've studied the Haskell FRP zoo and I can confirm that it's novel.
> > In my opinion it's very elegant and simple, but of course I'm biased :)
> >
> > So far so good. Can you please help me to choose the right category for
> it?
> > Is it a normal research paper or is it a functional pearl?
> >
> > So the FRP is an old technique, but I propose a novel variant of
> implementation
> > which I hope is easy to study even in normal class rooms and does not
> contain
> > unsafePerform tricks.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Anton
> > _______________________________________________
> > Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> > To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> > Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20220201/3fbc910a/attachment.html>