eeartym@cybaswan.UUCP (Dr R.Artym eleceng ) (08/05/88)
Comp.arch has got out of hand, I think. Is there any support for splitting it into 4 or 5 topical subgroups representing the bulk of traffic over the last few months? The present flat structure was OK a year or so back, but the great increase in traffic makes it quite unwieldy now. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Keywords: Parallel, Applicative, and Object-Oriented Languages and Systems --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Richard Artym, + UUCP : ..!ukc!pyr.swan.ac.uk!eeartym Electrical Engineering Dept., + JANET : eeartym@uk.ac.swan.pyr University of Wales, + Phone : [(0792) or (+44 792)] 295536 Swansea, SA2 8PP, + Fax : [(0792) or (+44 792)] 295532 U.K. + Telex : 48358 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (08/08/88)
In article <43@cybaswan.UUCP> eeartym@cybaswan.UUCP (Dr R.Artym eleceng ) writes: >Comp.arch has got out of hand, I think. Is there any support for splitting >it into 4 or 5 topical subgroups representing the bulk of traffic over the >last few months? The present flat structure was OK a year or so back, but >the great increase in traffic makes it quite unwieldy now. The "topical subgroups" already exist, and if we all used a bit more discipline we could clean up the problems a bit. Discussions of the C language keep popping up; they belong in comp.lang.c or comp.std.c. Programming languages are a frequent topic; there's comp.lang.misc for them. Most of the discussion about whether to program in assember or HLL could go there as well. The discussion of blitters is starting to turn into a "my favorite personal computer does it better" discussion; maybe we need comp.sys.flame for these. Often a discussion starts off on computer architecture and drifts; when this happens, it can be moved into other groups by adding a crosspost and a Followup-To line. For example, if the answer to a question really involved the subtleties of the C language, you can say Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.c Followup-To: comp.lang.c and warn people in the body of the article that followups are going some place else. -- - Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,pyramid,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck jbuck@epimass.epi.com Old Arpa mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net If you leave your fate in the hands of the gods, don't be surprised if they have a few grins at your expense. - Tom Robbins
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (08/09/88)
In article <2371@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >In article <43@cybaswan.UUCP> eeartym@cybaswan.UUCP (Dr. Boyo) writes: >>Comp.arch has got out of hand, I think. Is there any support for splitting >>it into 4 or 5 topical subgroups representing the bulk of traffic over the >>last few months? The present flat structure was OK a year or so back, but >>the great increase in traffic makes it quite unwieldy now. > [...] >Often a discussion starts off on computer architecture and drifts; when >this happens, it can be moved into other groups by adding a crosspost >and a Followup-To line. For example, if the answer to a question really >involved the subtleties of the C language, you can say > > Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.c > Followup-To: comp.lang.c > >and warn people in the body of the article that followups are going some >place else. (especially if it's talk.bizarre) Sagely advice, to be sure. The only point no covered seems to be what to do with all these 'old' computers that brought up in fits of nostalgia: RCA-1802'sm 6502's, IBM 1130's 8088's :-) Chuck McManis jokingly proposed comp.nostalgia about a year ago. Is it time ? -- Who are these ones that would lead us now ? richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {backbone}!gryphon!richard