Open rrnewton opened 7 years ago
I think "TT" was first mentioned without explanation.
When you started talking about tactics, you threw in terms like hole and focus, and phrases like "solve with typeclass resolution," without giving much context.
I was unclear on the difference/connection between Raw
and TT
. You used both in your Elaborating DSLs example and I don't remember an explanation of what they were.
I know you were running out of time, but I got lost at the end.
Showing the implementation of mush
was a good idea. It's impressively simple.
Despite the technical issues, your textboxes-in-a-slideshow thing is pretty cool.
This suggestion is vague, but is there any way you can make your argument for the first two bullet points on your final slide more explicit? It seems that your argument consists of showing off what one can do by following your advice. Can you perhaps organize your sequence of demos into a compact yet informative classification or outline that you can show on your final slide to remind the audience of why they should draw the same conclusions as you do?
The slide titled "Metaprogramming dependent types" had three high level points, and you had a lot to say about each point. You might want to either 1) say less during that slide, or 2) make slides that show what you're saying there.
I agree with @vollmerm : it's cool to see code boxes inside slides!
Comments below.