1. 1

  2. 2

    This is only an advertisement for a $15 PDF.

    1. 1

      sigh Yeah, it’s kind of awful that published papers are always behind paywalls. This one doesn’t sound interesting enough, especially without a description of why it’s relevant to this audience. I know I’m going to change my mind ten times on whether it deserves the spam flag though.

      1. 2

        Sorry, when I posted the link it was still going through to the paper. This paper calls for a higher standard of evidence used as the basis for decision making in the design of programming languages. It also contains a number of citations of currently existing empirical research in this area.

        It relates to the video I posted here: https://lobste.rs/s/dtqwtq/evidence-oriented_programming_by_andreas_stefik

      2. 1

        Argh. Sorry!

        shakes fist at ACM

        I even tested this a few times before posting and it went through to the PDF each time. :(

        1. 2

          No worries. It just means you have an employer or educator who can afford a site license for you, which is a nice situation to be in. :)

          Similarly, I try not to submit stories with obnoxious pop-ups (99% of which ask for an email address - I know the business case for these but they still bother me) but my ad blocker catches the ones served from the big email services, so…

          1. 1

            Actually, we don’t have a site license. I think it may have to do with the way ACM allows authors to use direct links from their bibliographies. See my comment here: https://lobste.rs/s/g6qugv/the_programming_language_wars_questions_and_responsibilities_for_the_programming_language_community/comments/vtywan#c_vtywan

            Frustrating. :-/

            1. 1

              Anyway, no worries. Accidents happen.

      3. 2

        Sorry for the bad link!

        It may still be possible to get to this paper if you click the link from the author’s homepage first. ACM’s “Author-Izer” system must check referrers or something.