fc@uunet.UU.NET (07/04/89)
I'd like a copy [Performance of CM], if possible. Any media will do. if e-mailing,send to the address below. The site this message is originating from is my summer job. Franco Carlacci Dept. of Computing Science 6th floor, General Service building University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada franco@alberta.UUCP
eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) (02/21/90)
Dear apprentice generalizer: 8^) In article <8075@hubcap.clemson.edu> you write: >When compiling bibliographies, it would be most helpful if one asked such >questions as > 1- Has the system been implemented for real ? > 2- Is it available to external sites ? > 3- Does anybody actually use it for serious work ? > >I am sure this would reduce the size of such bibliographies by various >orders of magnitude. It would also improve their utility by the same >factor or more, esp on lists such as this one. I am more than happy to integrate a consistent system of keywords into my bibliography. I made a commitment to maintain mine 10 years. Annotations and added keywords are most welcome. I integrate those bibs posted to various boards when I have time as well. [I will tell you right now that "real" isn't a good word. "available" and "serious" are also subject to question. But we can iterate.] One can see differing commentary in some of the annotations in my bib with the data flow and control flow people arguing. I just have to receive the feedback. If I don't get it, it's lost in the wire: out into the virtual Ether. Hey and it's free, I just have to keep Prentice-Hall happy, since they hold Satyararanyan's copyright. You should just ask whom at CMU has the current copy (perhaps HT Kung). Yet Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene Do you expect anything BUT generalizations on the net? [If it ain't source, it ain't software -- D. Tweten]
fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu (Steve Stevenson) (02/21/90)
In article <8081@hubcap.clemson.edu> frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU (Greg Frazier) writes: > >One of the major problems in academia today (in my opinion) >is the fad for implementing systems, be they hardware or >software. In many cases, the implementations are simply >attempts to drum up money (which is often successful). If >a concept can be clearly demonstrated without implementation, >then universities have no business implementing them - the students' >time would be better spent doing original research rather than >implementing algorithms whose validity has already been >demonstrated. While, indeed, one cannot *know* a parallel/distributed >language, OS, or machine will "work" until one actually sees it >running, if we don't even look at peoples' work until it is at >that stage, the delay between conception and revelation of ideas >will be HUGE!!! I want to hear about those ideas sooner than that. > In many cases, a concepts useful ness cannot be demonstrated without implementing at least a prototype of said system. A researcher may have missed some crucial sync-point or other unexpected external force. The point is that while an implementation of a system (even a prototype) shouldn't be done until the concept has been proven useful/germane/valid one can't say the concept is *usable* without being sure that everything has been acounted for. In most cases, the most resonable way to accomplish this is to write a prototype and pound on it. IMHO, feasability studies are still in the domain of the researcher. You may claim that that is really an engineer's job, but (again) IMHO, an engineer uses *proven* technology to get the job done. I think it's irresponsible to just sit around brainstorming about ideas all the time. You loose track of the real world if you don't actually *do* something tangable. Furthermore, who's going to fund you if you don't get results. One of the advantages of funding research in the university is that it's *cheap*. Now, I agree with your complaint about the delay between conception and revelation of ideas is too large. However, that is due to the inadequacy of proto-typing tools, NOT "The System". Fortunately, lot's of work is being done in that area as of late and I don't think it will be too long before we have tools powerful enough to quickly implement prototypes of new ideas with much less overhead (in fact, the tools will pop up much sooner in universities). Charlie Fineman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Don't worry, be a happy fatalist" InterNET: fineman@pluto.arc.nasa.gov -- Steve Stevenson fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu (aka D. E. Stevenson), steve@hubcap.clemson.edu Department of Computer Science, comp.parallel Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906 (803)656-5880.mabell
retrac@titan.rice.edu (John Carter) (02/22/90)
In article <8075@hubcap.clemson.edu> af@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Alessandro Forin) writes: >When compiling bibliographies, it would be most helpful if one asked such >questions as > 1- Has the system been implemented for real ? > 2- Is it available to external sites ? > 3- Does anybody actually use it for serious work ? > >I am sure this would reduce the size of such bibliographies by various >orders of magnitude. It would also improve their utility by the same >factor or more, esp on lists such as this one. It really depends on what you want the bibliography for. If what you're interested in is the current research going on in the field, then you want to know about *all* the work that's been done or proposed so that you can decide for yourself what are the good ideas and what aren't. You wouldn't really care if the people with the "neat idea" have spent the <big number> of man hours necessary to clean up the user-interface, remove the last few bugs, write up the nice user documentation, and otherwise make the idea "commercial quality". That's the difference between the R and the D in R&D (research and development). Of course, it *is* useful to know which systems/algorithms/whatever *are* "commercial quality", but not so that you can discard the rest as so much trash. For example, Apple commercialized the ideas that were developed at Xerox PARC for mouse-driven, window-oriented user interfaces, but that certainly doesn't make Apple's "research" the only stuff worth having in your bibliography! Quite the opposite, in fact. >As far as I know, the bib on DSM would contain, at this time, only one entry: >Mach. And Linda, if we use the most general definition. > >I'd be happy to be convinced there are more. As far as I know, Mach is the only system that claims to meet your three requirements stated above. However, I certainly don't think that the only research in the area of distributed shared memory that is worth reading about is that associated with Mach. I hope that you don't think that, either. Leaving Kai Li's Ivy system out of a bibliography on DSM just because it isn't in wide circulation is silly. Research != Development. -- John Carter (retrac@rice.edu -or- {any-Internet-node}!rice!retrac) Rice University, Dept of Computer Science, Houston, TX Go OWLS! Go ROCKETS! Go DOLPHINS! Go REDS!