🚀 go-pugleaf

tve@crackle.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Thorsten von Eicken) writes:

[about SIGARCH Notices]

>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?

Yeah, I've thought this about a lot of the papers in SIGPLAN Notices.
On the other hand, there _are_ useful papers, submitted by people who
are concerned about timely publication or wide distribution.
Also by people who are less concerned about building a case for
tenure!  A nice example is the whole series that Henry Baker has been
knocking out recently.  He's single handedly raising the tone of the
publication.

As Tipley suggests, CAN might place to publish otherwise unpublishable
papers.  Overcoming the (natual) reactions of von Eicken will be the
challenge.

And then there's comp.arch :-)

Preston Briggs