├── proposal-2017.docx ├── proposal-2017.pdf ├── proposal-2018.pdf ├── ideas.md └── proposal-2017.md /proposal-2017.docx: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tpetricek/anarchy-workshop/HEAD/proposal-2017.docx -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /proposal-2017.pdf: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tpetricek/anarchy-workshop/HEAD/proposal-2017.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /proposal-2018.pdf: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tpetricek/anarchy-workshop/HEAD/proposal-2018.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /ideas.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | ## Overview 2 | 3 | **THE PROBLEM:** Much of PL research is done in a way that makes it easy to evaluate the work using a small number of methods - one can write formal models with proofs, implement things that can be measured or perform controlled user studies. As a result, "the course of our investigation is deflected into narrow channels of things already understood." 4 | 5 | **WHY IS THIS A PROBLEM:** This is a problem because many interesting ideas about programming do not have space in the modern programming language research community, because we do not yet know how to evaluate them and as a result, we see them as "unscientific". 6 | 7 | **THE SOLUTION:** The aim of this workshop is to provide a venue where such ideas can be presented and discussed. In the absence of "objective" evaluation methods, our only resort is to rely on "subjective" criticism. The workshop will take inspiration from literary criticism - submissions that provoke interesting discussions will be published together with a review that presents an alternative position, additional context or summary of discussion at the workshop. 8 | 9 | **WHAT ARE THE CONSEQENCES:** The methodology of critical commentary makes it possible to explore a much wider space of programming ideas than those that are currently covered by main-stream PL conferences. This workshop aims to explore new corners of the space, including both areas where subjective criticism is the only option, but also areas where more objective evaluation is possible, but has not yet been discovered. 10 | 11 | ## Questions & Answers 12 | 13 | What will we publish? Each published submission will be accompanied with a critical review written either by a PC member or by one of the workshop attendees (with PC member serving as a shepherd to ensure the quality of the review). This complements the "idea" paper with an evaluation and context. 14 | 15 | How will we accept papers? We will accept papers for which the PC members are willing to serve as critics (or will be able to find someone else in the community - possibly among the workshop attendees or authors of other submissions - who would accept this role). This means we will accept any work that inspires interesting discussion. 16 | 17 | What topics we're interested in? The workshop itself is open to a wide range of programming related topics. This very much depends on the PC members and so we'll expect that each PC member will write a short paragraph about things they are interested in. 18 | 19 | ## Philosophical motivation 20 | 21 | TBD: I think there is a space for a brief section in the workshop proposal about the philosophical motivations for this (i.e. we are far from being the only people around who think that something like the above is needed for progressing the science). Below are some random quotes that might fit. 22 | 23 | > If a subject does not permit exactness, it is not sufficient to be exact about something else. (Realms of Value, Ralph Barton Perry) 24 | 25 | > The alternative (...) which I am seeking to establish here, is to restore to us once more the power 26 | > for the deliberate holding of improved beliefs. We should be able to profess now knowingly and openly 27 | > those beliefs which could be tacitly taken for granted in the days before modern philosophic 28 | > criticism reached its present incisiveness. (Personal Knowledge, Michael Polanyi) 29 | 30 | > Objectivity is the delusion that observations could be made without an observer. (Heinz von Foerster) 31 | 32 | > To 'clarify' the terms of a discussion does not mean to study the additional and as yet unknown properties of the 33 | > domain in question which one needs to make them fully understood, it means to fill them with existing notions 34 | > from the entirely different domain of logic and common sense, (...) and to take care that the process of filling 35 | > obeys the accepted laws of logic. So the course of an investigation is deflected into the narrow channels of 36 | > things already understood and the possibility of fundamental conceptual discovery is significantly reduced. (Against Method, Paul Feyerabend) 37 | 38 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /proposal-2017.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | ## Workshop basics 2 | 3 | - Workshop Title! [Discuss here!](https://github.com/tpetricek/anarchy-workshop/issues/1). 4 | - Organizers & Primary contact - I'm happy to be primary contact, but would like to have 5 | at least one co-organizer, preferably someone who has organized similar event before. 6 | Anyone? 7 | 8 | ### Abstract 9 | 10 | Most of academic work on programming languages is done in a way that makes it possible to evaluate 11 | the presented work using a small number of methods - an idea can be supported by a formal model 12 | with proofs, prototype implementation with measurable indicators or a controlled user study. As 13 | a result, programming language ideas are often shaped in a way that makes such evaluation possible. 14 | As a result, many interesting ideas about programming struggle to find space in the modern 15 | programming language research community, because we do not yet know how to evaluate them and we 16 | see them as "unscientific". 17 | 18 | The aim of this workshop is to provide a venue where such ideas can be presented and discussed. 19 | In the absence of established evaluation methods, our only resort is to subject work to 20 | constructive critical review. This workshop takes inspiration from literary criticism - 21 | submissions that provoke interesting discussion will be published together with an attributed 22 | review that presents an alternative position, develops additional context or summarizes 23 | discussion at the workshop. 24 | 25 | The methodology of constructive critical commentary makes it possible to explore a wider space 26 | of programming ideas than those that are covered by established programming language conferences. 27 | This workshop not only enables exploration of new areas of the programming language ideas space, 28 | but also provides a venue for discovering other areas of the idea space where further quantitative 29 | or qualitative evaluation methods can be applied. 30 | 31 | ## Motivation 32 | 33 | ### Objectives 34 | 35 | The objective of the workshop is to explicitly provide a venue for discussing programming 36 | language ideas that are difficult to evaluate using established programming language 37 | evaluation methods. We intend to encourage submissions such as: 38 | 39 | - **Thought experiments.** Just like Galileo's early efforts "involved thought 40 | experiments, analogies and illustrative metaphors rather than detailed experimentation" 41 | (Chalmers 1999, p106), we believe that thought experiments can inspire fruitful 42 | programming language ideas. Wadler's widely cited, but never formally published, 43 | "expression problem" (Wadler 1998) can be seen as such a programming language thought 44 | experiment (as argued by Petricek 2015). 45 | 46 | - **Experimentation.** As noted by Hacking, "we find prejudices in favour of theory, as 47 | far back as there is institutionalized science" (Hacking 1983, p150). We intend to 48 | encourage submissions that "conduct experiment simply out of curiosity to see what 49 | will happen." As further noted by Hacking "The physicist George Darwin used to say 50 | that every once in a while one should do a completely crazy experiment, like blowing 51 | the trumpet to the tulips every morning for a month. Probably nothing will happen, but 52 | if something did happen, that would be a stupendous discovery" (Hacking 1983, p151). 53 | 54 | - **Paradigms.** All scientific work is rooted in a scientific paradigm (Kuhn 1970) or 55 | scientific research programme (Lakatos 1975). Those define not only appropriate methods 56 | for answering scientific questions, but also determine what questions are asked. 57 | We would like to encourage submissions that explore alternative scientific paradigms 58 | or research programmes by acknowledging that "logically perfect versions (...) usually 59 | arrive long after imperfect versions have enriched science" (Feyerabend 2010, p8) 60 | 61 | - **Metaphors, myths and analogies.** After all, John von Neumann's report on EDVAC, 62 | which introduced modern computer architecture, was inspired by a biological metaphor 63 | and referred to individual computer components as "organs" (von Neumann, 1945) 64 | and as noted by Heinz von Foerster "we should not forget that any description of 65 | formal, mathematical, quantitative or even poetical nature still represents just 66 | an analogy" (von Foerster, 2013). 67 | 68 | - **Other non-serious ideas.** As noted by Priestley, the idea that a steam-engine 69 | could be used to execute laborious computations was first suggested "in a manner which 70 | certainly at the time was not altogether serious" sparking "serious consideration of 71 | the possibility of mechanical computation" (Priestley 2011, p22). 72 | 73 | We believe that constructive criticism can provide a way for making discussions triggered 74 | by the above topics a valuable contribution to programming language research literature. 75 | A secondary objective of the workshop is to begin systematic exploration of the ideas 76 | in the programming language area and one of the roles of the critical reviews (published 77 | together with accepted submissions) is to provide additional context and relate the 78 | discussed ideas with other areas of the programming language design space. 79 | 80 | ### Intended audience (TBD) 81 | 82 | [Insert some generic note about how the workshop should be interesting to anyone?] 83 | 84 | ### Relevance (TBD) 85 | 86 | The workshop would complement the main ‹Programming› conference track by providing 87 | a venue for work that: 88 | 89 | - Can trigger an interesting discussion, but is more difficult to evaluate. 90 | - Explore programming ideas inspired by unorthodox sources of thoughts including 91 | metaphors, myths and analogies. 92 | 93 | By explicitly encouraging such submissions to a less formal workshop format, we would 94 | like to contribute to the diversity of thoughts represented at the ‹Programming› conference. 95 | 96 | ### Context (TBD) 97 | 98 | (Any past events related to your workshop including related conferences, previous 99 | workshops, previous sessions / panels) 100 | 101 | - Discussions at PPIG ? 102 | 103 | ### Need (TBD) 104 | 105 | > If a subject does not permit exactness, it is not sufficient to be exact 106 | > about something else. (Realms of Value, Ralph Barton Perry) 107 | 108 | > The alternative (...) which I am seeking to establish here, is to restore 109 | > to us once more the power for the deliberate holding of improved beliefs. 110 | > We should be able to profess now knowingly and openly those beliefs which 111 | > could be tacitly taken for granted in the days before modern philosophic 112 | > criticism reached its present incisiveness. (Personal Knowledge, Michael Polanyi) 113 | 114 | (Can we get someone else to say nice thing about this idea?) 115 | 116 | ## Organization (TBD) 117 | 118 | - Details on the organizers (previous workshop organizing experience, etc.) 119 | - Workshop program committee (indicated as finalized or expected) 120 | - Would you be willing to merge your workshop with other workshops on a similar 121 | topic if this were a condition for hosting your workshop at ‹Programming›? 122 | 123 | ## Workshop format 124 | 125 | - Planned deadlines 126 | - Intended paper format 127 | - Evaluation process 128 | - Intended publication of accepted papers (printed proceedings or website) 129 | - Intended workshop format (including duration, number of presentations, and planned keynotes) 130 | - How many participants do you expect (please make at least an educated guess) 131 | - What kind of equipment do you need (e.g., data projector, computer, whiteboard) 132 | 133 | ## Additional material 134 | 135 | - Workshop web page (URL of the draft web page, if one exists) 136 | - Draft Call for papers for the Workshop 137 | (a one page Call for papers that you intend to send out if your workshop is accepted) 138 | 139 | ## References 140 | 141 | - Feyerabend, P. (2010). Against method. Verso (4th edition). ISBN 1844674428. 142 | - Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy 143 | of Natural Science. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521282462. 144 | - Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? Open University Press. 145 | - Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago 146 | Press (2nd edition). ISBN 0226458040. 147 | - Lakatos, I. (1975). Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. 148 | In Can Theories be Refuted? Essays on the Duhem-Quine Thesis (ed. Harding, S. G.), 149 | pp205-259. ISBN 9789027706300. 150 | - von Neumann, J. (1945). First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC. University of Pennsylvania. 151 | - Petricek, T. (2015). Against a universal definition of 'type'. Onward! Essays 152 | - Priestley, M. (2011). A science of operations: machines, logic and the invention 153 | of programming. Springer Science & Business Media. 154 | - Wadler, P. (1998). The expression problem. Sent to the Java-genericity mailing list. 155 | 156 | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------