🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan5.212451.23482@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> tipley@solo.eng.hou.compaq.com (Roger Tipley) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.170446.15655@Princeton.EDU> awolfe@moo.Princeton.EDU (Andrew Wolfe) writes:
>My bookshelf has many ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News publications.
>They all have papers published in them, and 
>most of them have so few articles it makes me wonder why I subscribe to it.  I
>would lay odds that that publication would relish a whole host of "failure 
>stories", if for no other reason than to justify its existence and make it
>more interesting to read.

You should probably just throw them into the trash can :-) (after reading!)

I have stopped reading these papers. Almost all of them are of such a
low quality that it's simply not worth my time. If they were better,
they would appear in one of the good conferences, journals or
magazines.  I am very happy that the SIGARCH CAN have become slimmer
over the last year or so, rememeber: pages cost money! I think that the
role of the CAN should be to publish things which don't fit into other
media: news about SIGARCH, announcements, and things which simply have
no other forum. For examples, take a look at the SIGPLAN notices which
publish language manuals, bibliographies, netnews digests (yes, CAN
does as well). What's the point of publishing technical papers which
should have either appeared in a reviewed forum or landed in the
trash?
	Thorsten von Eicken