apply peer review feedback

[xylix]

ohjaajafeedback:

• [x] Intro:
  • Describe static and dynamic languages
  • Couple sentences about how static vs. dynamic languages efficiency is a hard problem, but gradual typing in a dynamic language is an easier problem, and one we are investigating here.
• [x] Background: Re-organization as suggested.
  • [x] change section headers
  • Typing:
    • [x] Gradual typing
  • [x] Re-contextualize relevant parts
• [ ] Analysis_:
  • Follow the research question from introduction "more precisely"
  • Move "costs and benefits" from conclusions into Analysis?
• [ ] Discussion
  • the discussion can go back to the main focus: why use python if you statically the code anyway, probably with a high-level summary considering both effect and cost you investigated in the analysis. If it’s a short discussion, better to integrate it into conclusion.
    • tavallaan inserttaa "mun ajattelua" nyt kun oon asiantuntija?
• [ ] Related work:
  • Jos tänne sopii enemmän tavaraa, voi olla ihan hyvä, mutta tällaisenaan olis hyvä jättää pois

Ryhmäläisfeedback:

[xylix]

Notes on peer review (not yet todos, pick todos from these):

• Interesting and easy to read!
• Could expand to more detailed descriptions of:
  • [x] static / dynamic / gradual typing
  • strong vs weak typing, strongly vs weakly typed languages
  • [?] (Tätä voi harkita)

Per section:

• [x] Introduction: provide a description for gradual typing
• Background:
  • [x] 2.1: Provide few examples of strongly and weakly typed languages
  • [x] 2.1.1 move around the python annotations stuff (Yang had a suggestion for how to shuffle, so do it)
  • [ ] 2.3: Use bullet points for Mypy, pyright, pycharm and mytype, or expand the descriptions