Are there any programming languages research venues where the peer review criteria focus on correctness and originality rather than motivation and projected impact?
Conversation
I'm getting more skeptical of "originality" (usually "novelty"). Some of my reviews this time are saying this isn't novel "enough", because it's similar to a bunch of other things. Well, yeah, we built on past work. And applied it to something new.
3
16
Yeah, perhaps that could be better phrased as "appropriate comparison with existing literature" or something?
1
2
Recall that the first few #rustlang PL submissions were rejected due to lack of novelty! We ended up redirecting and pushing out a more practically-oriented (and awesome) ICSE paper instead dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.114
1
4
15
This made me a laugh a lot.. imagining a set of POPL reviews "Rust huh? linear types for a low-level language? That's been done before, will have no impact, strong reject"
2
1
5
Lol this happened on /r/ProgrammingLanguages too – claiming that Rust isn't an advance because Clean, Cyclone, Linear Lisp, etc. existed prior… like, yeah those are really cool languages, but do they *really* provide the same balance of design tradeoffs that Rust does? 🙄
2
3
One should really not try to predict impact.
1
3
This happened this year though, haha. 🤦♂️
1
1
I'm really supportive of referencing that work, and going back to to them to see what we can do differently, based on what has been learned in Rust. Was mainly the ‘Rust is not a big advance because of this combination of languages existed’ that kind of annoyed me.