
Research for Practice: Expert-curated guides to the best of CS research - ingve
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2949831
======
pjungwir
I love this idea! I'm just a working programmer, but right now I'm trying to
read through the highlights on research into temporal databases. People have
been writing papers for 25-30 years, but it seems like not a lot has made its
way into everyday practice or commercial products. Something was almost added
to the SQL standard around 1997-2000, but was eventually rejected. SQL:2011
added something but it is pretty incomplete. I have been thinking I should put
together a bibliography and a talk: temporal databases for web developers. A
list curated by an expert would have saved me a lot of time!

I'm also (less professionally) interested in the overlap between the results
from Turing and Godel. I would love a guide and/or annotations for Turing's
"On Computable Numbers", because it is not easy going. Also a list of papers
for quantum computing....

~~~
dharmon
Such a thing exists. It's called "The Annotated Turing" by Charles Petzold (of
"Programming Windows" fame). It's very good, although the machinery of setting
up the Turing machine can be tedious.

~~~
pjungwir
Wow, purchased, thank you!

 _Code_ starts out tedious too but is worth it by the end. I guess for any
technical subject you have to make sure you cover sufficient preliminaries to
get all your readers up to speed.

------
smokinn
Adrian Colyer does something similar with his blog which I highly recommend:

[https://blog.acolyer.org/](https://blog.acolyer.org/)

Every weekday he posts a digestible summary of an influential paper, typically
with a link to the paper itself.

~~~
theptip
+1 for this; Colyer's blog has been incredibly eye-opening.

Just reading the summaries is pretty interesting, but having a curated set of
papers to dig into as time permits is fantastic as well.

------
vmarsy
This is a good idea, but how were those experts and "best papers" chosen? It's
a well known fact that for each research domain, there are a few 'competing'
labs. How can we be sure the experts aren't biased and decide to promote their
papers to increase their visibility?

What would be cool is some sort of Hackernews style ranking per research
domain, with voting ring detection, the only voters would be "recognized
experts" (from academia or industry) with enough karma in their respective
domain.

~~~
kabouseng
We already have that, it's called citations...

~~~
deadgrey19
Citations give a ranking of how often work is mentioned, but not how valuable
the work is. For example " Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific
colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children" , otherwise known
as "Vaccines Cause Autism" has (according to google scholar) over 2000
citations, but is known to be wrong and based on bad science.

