The content is quite interesting, but this paper could use some serious editing. There are typos throughout, and the tone is overly colloquial for an academic context.
The paper could also use an evaluation section - e.g. implementing a solution to a well known problem like the Dining Philosophers in both languages and comparing both the code and runtime characteristics.
I strongly disagree in regards to the colloquial aspect you mentioned. Academic papers have no reason to be pompous or high level and can benefit from increased visibility by presenting the findings in a more colloquial manner.
What's wrong with colloquial style? Perhaps the usual stuffy style of academic writing is a trapping to avoid, not something to imitate and perpetuate.
Comments
The content is quite interesting, but this paper could use some serious editing. There are typos throughout, and the tone is overly colloquial for an academic context.
The paper could also use an evaluation section - e.g. implementing a solution to a well known problem like the Dining Philosophers in both languages and comparing both the code and runtime characteristics.
I strongly disagree in regards to the colloquial aspect you mentioned. Academic papers have no reason to be pompous or high level and can benefit from increased visibility by presenting the findings in a more colloquial manner.
What's wrong with colloquial style? Perhaps the usual stuffy style of academic writing is a trapping to avoid, not something to imitate and perpetuate.