- "Systematic Abstraction of Abstract Machines" from JFP 2012 (39 pages)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.3539
- "Abstracting Abstract Machines" from ACM ICFP, 2010, (12 pages)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4446
http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/fall2014/cmsc631/papers/vanhorn-...
- "Abstracting Abstract Machines" from CACM highlight 2011 (8 pages)
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/dvanhorn/pubs/vanhorn-might-cacm...
However, it is unfortunately hard to make relevant comments on such articles. As the introduction says, it's pretty quick to set everything up (just one apt-get away), the clean racket syntax allows to define a calculus very neatly, but that's a far cry from being able to say much about it. I think I'll try to follow the tutorial with a classical calculus (λμ) and see how that turns out, but that's going to take some time. So here goes "This was posted once before by HN user 'ingve' but didn't get much attention".
Some truly great stories get few, if any, comments. If a post requires effort or specialized knowledge to even ask good questions, then there isn't much discussion. This happens a lot when academic papers are posted since reading a paper might require a multi-hour investment, but even when there is little discussion, it's good to have heavy articles submitted. They balance out the other stuff.
If you find something great-but-overlooked in the /newest queue, then send an email to hn@ycombinator.com asking for a repost request to be sent to the original submitter. That's what I did with this article, but Dan (dang) asked me to repost it myself. Neither 'ingve' nor I care who gets the credit/karma, but a lot of people want great articles to get attention on HN.
HN is what we make it.
