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