logseq/pages/sle23-paper89.md

type:: REVIEWS tags:: year:: 2023 venue:: SLE full-title:: Development of a Language Workbench: Experience Report from the Sirius Project date-start:: 18-08-2023 - 15:13 date-submitted:: 19-08-2023 external-links:: https://sle23.hotcrp.com/paper/89 status:: DONE deadline-submission:: 18-08-2023 file::

- [[Highlights]]
	- ((64e08d80-8f89-4155-83d9-30256f811baa))
		- Two roles?
	- ((64e08e22-4b2f-4915-9c09-77b40f1f3f5e))
		- It does not parse.
	- ((64e08e51-bbf5-4fef-bad4-ba031b563448))
		- The use of punctuation needs to be improved.
	- ((64e08f6d-48f9-47ea-9e60-cc0d492c069c))
		- This is not clear. What JAVA API? Moreover, use of a Java-based API to work at higher levels of abstraction?
	- ((64e08fb9-0828-46e8-a6b4-e07ef2a7f925))
		- This comes out of the blue.
	-
- [[Comments]]
	- This is a tool paper aiming at presenting an experience report related to the development of the Sirius Project. The goal is to establish a set of lessons learned that can be leveraged when developing new language workbenches.
	- I like the goal of the paper, even though in my opinion the obtained result does not properly meet the initial aspirations. Sections 3 and 4 enumerate a series of rationales, which, rather than translating into lessons learned, seem to resemble an inventory of Sirius functionalities, and it is not clear how to get them as lessons learned. The introduction of Java-based APIs within the first rationale appears abrupt, lacking the necessary context or motivation. In essence, what constitutes the novel aspects in terms of lessons learned or unexplored inquiries? For instance, decoupling the development of abstract syntax and concrete syntax is a standard the facto, thus I don't get what is the new lesson learned.
	- The paper contains multiple instances of English errors that necessitate correction.
	- To summarize, even though the paper can have potential, it requires a serious revision. Revisiting and reevaluating the various sections is imperative to align the content with the intended expectations. The revision process should focus on clarifying the lessons learned, distinguishing them from existing functionalities, and ensuring the text is polished to meet linguistic standards.
	-
- NOTES
	- **Tool papers**: These papers focus on the tooling aspects often forgotten or neglected in research papers. A good tool paper focuses on practical insights that will likely be useful to other implementers or users in the future. Any of the SLE topics of interest are appropriate areas for tool demonstrations. Submissions must not exceed 5 pages and may optionally include 1 further page of bibliography/appendices. They may optionally include an appendix with a demo outline/screenshots and/or a short video/screencast illustrating the tool.
-