uselton@nas.nasa.gov (Samuel P. Uselton) (05/23/91)
In article <1CE00001.fvknuj@titipu.meta.com> ed@titipu.meta.com (Edward Reid) writes: > >But there is indeed value in entertaining highlights, and I support your >suggestions for adding this to CACM. In theory this is already in place in the >NEWSTRACK column, which at present is disgustingly low-level (e.g. the phrase >from the May column "the proposed code would represent letters and symbols by a >sequence of 16 zeroes and ones instead of eight..."), appallingly brief (11 >items in 2 pages), and contains no references, which is absolutely unacceptable >in a publication intended for a scientifically literate audience. > >Edward Reid (8-}> > eel: ed@titipu.meta.com > snail: PO Box 378/Greensboro FL 32330 The following paragraphs are from the body of a letter I wrote and shelved, rewrote and shelved again. The reason I have not sent it, is that I'm not usually so inflammatory, so I was trying to get at why these issues struck me so strongly. Part of the answer may lie in the discomfort from the font/format/etc as being discussed in this thread. When I saw the comment about Newstrack, I had to put in my $0.02. What finally stimulated me to write is that I was offended by the sloppiness of your (CACM) "Newstrack" reporting in the April issue. If you are going to aim at a more general audience, please at least be accurate and useful in the information that you disseminate. On page 10 of the April issue of CACM, there are two "Newstrack" articles that I find particularly lacking. The first has the heading "Successful trip..." and concerns the Traveling Salesman Problem. Your article misrepresents facts in two important particulars. First, after a brief problem description, you claim that the problem is unsolved. In fact there is a clear, straightforward algorithmic solution, which always finds the right answer and has been known for many years. The difficulty is that this solution requires a number of steps that increases exponentially with the number of cities to be visited, and so it is impractical for large numbers of cities. It is one of the best known NP-hard problems. If an algorithm were developed that always found the right answer in a number of steps described by a polynomial of the number of cities, that algorithm would prove P=NP, answering one of the major unsolved questions of computer science. The tone of the article (and its placement in the news section) results in disappointment (at least for me) that the new algorithm only works for "some types of TSPs but not all." There were algorithms already known that find the right answer for some cases (as well as algorithms that find good approximations for all cases). Those of your readership who follow such things have probably already seen the two month old issue of Science in which the real contribution of this work is clear. Those of your readers who don't follow the field are at best left uninformed as to the real difference this algorithm makes, and at worst misled entirely. The article immediately following, with the heading "OOPS EFFORTS..." is lacking in a different respect. When I read it, my initial reaction was "so what." Object Oriented Programming is not completely new, although it is still developing and spreading. It seems most useful in attacking complex problems. The fact that collaborators from three well respected institutions could make a prototype of a complex simulation that actually works seemed to me tantamount to saying that they were able to do their jobs. I hope such an occurrence is NOT worth a news item! It was only after I read the article in IEEE Computer magazine (April 1991, page 72) on the same project that I understood why it was considered worthy of a news item. The title, "Project combines object-oriented technolgy, parallel processing," reveals the missing piece. Why does the CACM piece fail to mention parallel processing even once? IEEE Computer spends almost twice as much page space on this article, but I learn useful information just from their title. In a technical publication, form must follow content. Trimming content to fit the form makes the remaining content a waste of time. I'll remain a member of ACM because the member discount to conferences pays for the membership and I subscribe to several "Transactions" and SIG publications. In my estimation, CACM is becoming a waste of my time and shelf space. If it were unbundled from membership dues, I would probably drop my subscription. If the quality does not improve I will increase my support for that option. Samuel P. Uselton ACM member 1489400, since 1975. 1216 Austin St. Fremont, CA 94539 uselton@nas.nasa.gov
jclark@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Jeff Clark) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May22.230434.20869@nas.nasa.gov> uselton@nas.nasa.gov (Samuel P. Uselton) writes:
Samuel> In a technical publication, form must follow content. Trimming content to
Samuel> fit the form makes the remaining content a waste of time. I'll remain
Samuel> a member of ACM because the member discount to conferences pays for the
Samuel> membership and I subscribe to several "Transactions" and SIG publications.
Ditto.
Samuel> In my estimation, CACM is becoming a waste of my time and shelf space.
Samuel> If it were unbundled from membership dues, I would probably drop my
Samuel> subscription. If the quality does not improve I will increase my support
Samuel> for that option.
Absolutely. I can count the number of articles from the last five years of
CACM that I've taken the time to read on the fingers of one hand. I'd jump
at the chance to drop this turkey.
Jeff Clark (ACM Member Since 1978)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Systems / Software Technology Internet: jclark@src.honeywell.com
Honeywell Systems and Research Center UUCPnet: jclark@srcsip.UUCP
3660 Technology Drive MN65-2100 PHONEnet: (612) 782-7347
Minneapolis, MN 55418-1006 USA FAXnet: (612) 782-7438
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: If you think I speak for my employer, you need serious help ...