What is a good resource for someone who want to read good papers from time to time?
Follow some academics in the field you are interested in on Twitter.
would you suggest from whom to start?
Ask HN: Papers you read in 2015?
41–46 of 46 posts
Re: Ask HN: Papers you read in 2015?
#42Re: Ask HN: Papers you read in 2015?
#43This year I read a some cool papers:
Big Ball of Mud
Brian Foote and Joseph Yoder
About the reasons why good software become ugly and complex.
----------
The Inevitable Pain of Software Development
Daniel M. Berry
About changes of requirements for the software.
https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~dberry/FTP_SITE/reprints.journals.c...
----------
No Silver Bullet
Frederick P. Brooks, Jr.
The software developing is in essense very complex.
http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~pszcah/G51ISS/Documents/NoSilverBu...
----------
Notes On Structured Programming
Edsger W. Dijkstra
Why we don't have to use goto.
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd02xx/EWD249.PDF
----------
Watermarking, tamper-proofing, and obfuscation - tools for software protection
Collberg, C.S. ; Dept. of Comput. Sci., Arizona Univ., Tucson, AZ, USA ; Thomborson, C.
Re: Ask HN: Papers you read in 2015?
#44Not a specific list of papers, but I find Sigcomm to generally have very good papers in the field of networking and communications. Here's the link for this year's conference:
Re: Ask HN: Papers you read in 2015?
#45memory networks: http://www.thespermwhale.com/jaseweston/ram/
Thanks for linking this! But I easily overlooked your post. It links to "Reasoning, Attention, Memory (RAM) NIPS Workshop 2015"
Re: Ask HN: Papers you read in 2015?
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crumbs, it takes me about two weeks to get through a paper properly!
I can't speak for parent, but I believe people who read a paper a day, don't try to understand it deeply enough to be able to start implementing whatever the paper talks about. Rather it is read to get an idea of the approach and what kind of results it will give and what kind of problems it can solve.
When I read most papers, it will be to do what you say. There are many papers which really aren't worth spending more than 20 minutes perusing since they just rehash or tweak something which was done previously. Unfortunately with the publish-or-perish mentality predominant in most of academia, I'd say this is getting far worse and likely to increase. Sometimes I wish there were a "goodreads" or "netflix" for scientists.
Now, a good paper I will read and grok the main importance in a few hours to the point I can implement the basics. But, a classic paper will be like a well-thumbed classic and might take years to fully grasp.