I used all the points @ccshan mentioned and pushed to github. Right now our total words are 1384 which includes some text of reviewers questions as well.

I will try to edit later today

should I mark the response to be ready to view?

can we still edit it after checking that box

yes, and I did that just now

I also re-did the bit about TR

sorry I haven’t been able to help more

But here’s my main suggestion: revise the intro paragraphs to address specific broad reviewer concerns

I think the two big issues are (1) is this research and not just engieering and (2) is this really different than an LLVM API

So I would say something like: We begin by addressing two overarching concerns: Is sham a research contribution?... How does sham improve on the experience of using the LLVM API (or another low-level language) directly?...

And then follow with the detailed responses that you have

any specific things to say about the first one?

I think Sham is a holistic language design, not just an implementation, and that’s what we should focus on.

But now I need to go.

If I’m up before 7 I’ll edit.

okay I do the changes now

*will