2 added 61 characters in body
source | link

It depends of the audience at which is aimed the article.

In theory, in a scientific document you must explicitly list the basis for all your assumptions, and defend them. If the correctness of the thesis described in your article depends on fact $A$, then you either prove $A$ or give a reference to someone who proved $A$. In practice scientific reports skip some references assumed to be common (e.g. definition and properties of the logarithm): it used to be important to save printing space (not so true now with electronic proceedings), it stays important to keep the article uncluttered. Given the reasons for skipping some references, there cannot be any absolute rule about which ones to skip: the decision depends of the audience you are aiming at, and in particular of your evaluation of the knowledge in common between you and them: put references when they are necessary to your audience (and do not clutter your article when they are not).

For instance, your sentence about Java being class-based would be unwelcome (in addition of unnecessary) in an article aimed at researchers in computer science, because this fact is supposed to be well known (and agreed upon). But it might be welcome in an article aimed at students (in computer science or not), or researchers in other fields than computer science (e.g. biologists). On the other hand, the fact that Java is slower than C++ might evolve in time (e.g. java compilers getting better), or be argued against (different type of applications): you should always give a reference for this kind of statement if you did not argue or prove it yourself.

Hope it helps!

In theory, in a scientific document you must explicitly list the basis for all your assumptions, and defend them. If the correctness of the thesis described in your article depends on fact $A$, then you either prove $A$ or give a reference to someone who proved $A$. In practice scientific reports skip some references assumed to be common (e.g. definition and properties of the logarithm): it used to be important to save printing space (not so true now with electronic proceedings), it stays important to keep the article uncluttered. Given the reasons for skipping some references, there cannot be any absolute rule about which ones to skip: the decision depends of the audience you are aiming at, and in particular of your evaluation of the knowledge in common between you and them: put references when they are necessary to your audience (and do not clutter your article when they are not).

For instance, your sentence about Java being class-based would be unwelcome (in addition of unnecessary) in an article aimed at researchers in computer science, because this fact is supposed to be well known (and agreed upon). But it might be welcome in an article aimed at students (in computer science or not), or researchers in other fields than computer science (e.g. biologists). On the other hand, the fact that Java is slower than C++ might evolve in time (e.g. java compilers getting better), or be argued against (different type of applications): you should always give a reference for this kind of statement if you did not argue or prove it yourself.

Hope it helps!

It depends of the audience at which is aimed the article.

In theory, in a scientific document you must explicitly list the basis for all your assumptions, and defend them. If the correctness of the thesis described in your article depends on fact $A$, then you either prove $A$ or give a reference to someone who proved $A$. In practice scientific reports skip some references assumed to be common (e.g. definition and properties of the logarithm): it used to be important to save printing space (not so true now with electronic proceedings), it stays important to keep the article uncluttered. Given the reasons for skipping some references, there cannot be any absolute rule about which ones to skip: the decision depends of the audience you are aiming at, and in particular of your evaluation of the knowledge in common between you and them: put references when they are necessary to your audience (and do not clutter your article when they are not).

For instance, your sentence about Java being class-based would be unwelcome (in addition of unnecessary) in an article aimed at researchers in computer science, because this fact is supposed to be well known (and agreed upon). But it might be welcome in an article aimed at students (in computer science or not), or researchers in other fields than computer science (e.g. biologists). On the other hand, the fact that Java is slower than C++ might evolve in time (e.g. java compilers getting better), or be argued against (different type of applications): you should always give a reference for this kind of statement if you did not argue or prove it yourself.

Hope it helps!

1
source | link

In theory, in a scientific document you must explicitly list the basis for all your assumptions, and defend them. If the correctness of the thesis described in your article depends on fact $A$, then you either prove $A$ or give a reference to someone who proved $A$. In practice scientific reports skip some references assumed to be common (e.g. definition and properties of the logarithm): it used to be important to save printing space (not so true now with electronic proceedings), it stays important to keep the article uncluttered. Given the reasons for skipping some references, there cannot be any absolute rule about which ones to skip: the decision depends of the audience you are aiming at, and in particular of your evaluation of the knowledge in common between you and them: put references when they are necessary to your audience (and do not clutter your article when they are not).

For instance, your sentence about Java being class-based would be unwelcome (in addition of unnecessary) in an article aimed at researchers in computer science, because this fact is supposed to be well known (and agreed upon). But it might be welcome in an article aimed at students (in computer science or not), or researchers in other fields than computer science (e.g. biologists). On the other hand, the fact that Java is slower than C++ might evolve in time (e.g. java compilers getting better), or be argued against (different type of applications): you should always give a reference for this kind of statement if you did not argue or prove it yourself.

Hope it helps!