[abc] RE: Proof-reading OOPSLA paper

Hi everyone,

I have started reading the paper till Section 5. It looks pretty good so
far, very comprehensible, great examples, impressive numbers. I especially
like the offensive comments on PQL... :) Below are few minor suggestions.
I'll read the rest of the paper tomorrow morning and email my further
suggestions ASAP.

you say abc-an extensible compiler for aspectj both in abstract and
introduction. seems a bit redundant to me.

page 2: we collect and develop of a set of...: I guess the first 'of' is a
bit unfortunate there...

page 4: the way the patterns are specified in J-LO: I think 'the' should not
really be there

page 4: AspectJ only allows one to intercept one event at a time...: the
first 'one' seem to be redundant here

page 4: you say: a simple aspect might keep a couple of identity hash maps:
and then it turns out that it is actually three. Probably using the word
several is better than a couple

page 4: It also possible, however, to use aspects to do exactly what a good
programmer would do by hand: 'is' is missing at the beginning of this
sentence

page 4: As said, it is useful to have this type of non-trivial
implementation as a 'gold standard' in our benchmarks: I think it is better
to start this sentence with 'As we said'

sometimes you write 'section X' with a capital letter and sometimes not

page 4: Not all systems provide for free variables to be bound in the
matching process: i suggest to rephrase this sentence

page 5: ...but it is also hard to implement efficiently.: does not sound
well

page 5: ...which indicated that its performance ranks well below those of
the systems we benchmark here...I think it is better to remove the word
'well' because at the first look it gives a rather positive feeling about
HAWK

Page 6: The performance number listed was obtained by using a heap size of
1.5G: Is it just one number or numbers? what is 1.5G?

page 7: These highlight the importance of...: the importance of what?
challenge N5?

page 9: Binding threads is impossible in PQL at the current time: I think it
would be better just to say: Binding threads is currently impossible in PQL.

page 9: strat-egy: is it a correct division of the word?

page 9: .and it cannot be expressed in PQL for the same reasons as that
example: for the same reasons as IN that example

page 9: i suggest to use * for the cases where the example is expressible,
but has bugs and - for the cases where the example is not expressible. it
seems more logical to me

page 9: On the NullTrack benchmark, using an appropriate data structure for
organising the set of partial matches yields to a speedup of a factor of 6.:
it is not clear what yields what?

Section 4: for example, Weka is written using three different fonts. is it
justified? Same applies to APPROVE

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pavel Avgustinov
> [mailto:pavel.avgustinov@magdalen.oxford.ac.uk]
> Sent: 16 March 2006 20:10
> To: aske@brics.dk; elnar.hajiyev@comlab.ox.ac.uk; dsereni@gmail.com
> Cc: abc@comlab.ox.ac.uk
> Subject: Proof-reading OOPSLA paper
>
> Hi,
>
> As you no doubt know, we have been working on an oopsla
> submission about trace monitoring features. The deadline is
> tomorrow, and we think we finally have a coherent enough
> draft to request 'outside eyes' to have a look.
>
> I have put a current (at the time of writing) version at
> http://musketeer.comlab.ox.ac.uk/~pavel/paper.pdf -- it is
> almost complete, but still misses a conclusions section, and
> some of the related/future work is not expanded.
>
> It would be great if you had the time to read through and
> point out any typos, inconsistencies, unnecessary repetitions
> or underexplained concepts that you can see. Of course, any
> sort of comment is helpful -- preferably in an email to abc@comlab.
>
> As I said, the deadline is very close, so we need any
> comments as soon as possible, tonight or tomorrow morning at
> the latest.
>
> To avoid biasing your judgement, I shall say no more. :-)
>
> Cheers,
> - P
>
Received on Fri Mar 17 01:23:22 2006