To me, it reads like a survey paper intended for (and maybe written by) a researcher about to start a new project. I am not a researcher in this space but I have dabbled elsewhere, so it is somewhat accessible. The degree to which one leverages existing jargon in their writing is a choice, of course.
I am curious -- what would have made it more effective at conveying information to you? Different people learn differently but I wonder how people get beyond the hurdles of jargon.
Yeah I'm not sure if it's just me and my learning style or if researchers purposefully use terminology that's obstructive to understanding to maintain walled gardens. I don't think my reading comprehension level is particularly low!
Usually the best way to learn about things like this for me is to see some actual code or to write things myself, but the lack of coding examples in the text isn't the thing that I find troubling. I don't know, it's just.. like, excessively pointer heavy?
Maybe if you've been in the field long enough, reading a particular term will instantly conjure up an idea of a corresponding algorithm or code block or something and that's what I'm missing.
I am curious -- what would have made it more effective at conveying information to you? Different people learn differently but I wonder how people get beyond the hurdles of jargon.