Steve Stevenson (fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu) (02/12/88)
From johnson@p.cs.uiuc.edu Thu Feb 11 10:46:09 1988
While comp.parallel is a better name than comp.hypercube, the best
name is comp.arch.parallel. Some might say that parallel programming
is a software topic, not an architecture topic. I wish that were
true, but it isn't.
Ralph Johnson
[ Comment. I thought of that, but I think the same argument as
we have against "comp.hypercube" apply here. For example,
theoreticians or software engineers might say "Oh, that's
machine implementation only." Our readership spans a wide
range of interests.
Comments?
]
------------------------------------------------------
From: Ehud Shapiro <udi%WISDOM.BITNET@CNUCE-VM.ARPA>
Subject: hypercube ==> parallel
I second the motion.
A point to note: there is a newsgroup called parsym, for parallel
symbolic computation. I haven't seen much of it lately, but perhaps it should
be united with comp.parallel as well.
Ehud Shapiro
[
Comment. Good suggestion. I'll check it out when we get at
bit further on.
]dfk@duke.cs.duke.edu (David Kotz) (02/12/88)
If there's enough diversity in readership, perhaps there SHOULD be two
groups, one for theory, comp.parallel, and one for architecture,
comp.arch.parallel. However, you may find things get cross-posted a
lot. If it is not clear what the volume is, then make it as general as
can be, say comp.parallel, and when the volume/diversity increases,
split off separate groups.
David Kotz
--
ARPA: dfk@cs.duke.edu
CSNET: dfk@duke
UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!dfk