I am an ACM http://www.acm.org/ student member. Thanks to the wonders of
surface mail, I've just received the Dec. 1998 issue (Vol. 41, No.12) of
the ACMemberNet newsletter. On page 13, the short article "Previews from
ACM's Magazine Group" says:
"The Magazine Group seeks to develop new print and electronic publications
for ACM and welcomes comments and ideas. For more information on the
Magazine Group's activities, please contact Executive Editor Jay Blickstein
at ··········@acm.org or Managing Editor Jennifer Bruer at ·····@acm.org."
I've written to suggest that they consider at least an electronic magazine
devoted to the Lisp family of languages. I invite all potentially
interested users, organizations and companies to contact ACM's Magazine
Group.
Any comments or opinions, especially from ACM members or insiders? Is this
a good idea in the first place? What are its chances of success?
Paolo
--
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
[ replying to comp.lang.lisp only
http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/cross-posting.html ]
·······@mclink.it (Paolo Amoroso) writes:
> I've written to suggest that they consider at least an electronic magazine
> devoted to the Lisp family of languages. I invite all potentially
> interested users, organizations and companies to contact ACM's Magazine
> Group.
>
> Any comments or opinions, especially from ACM members or insiders? Is this
> a good idea in the first place? What are its chances of success?
I found that most of my ACM magazines were just piling up unread and I
tried harder and harder to get them to move to the "online" model, but
I gave up in patience. Every year for several years I wrote a note with
my dues saying I wasn't going to wait much longer for a rational cost
online facility. Even now that they have such a facility, it's not rational
cost.
Even now, with an ACM online library, it seems more important to ACM to
count members as "people advertised to" than it is to acknowledge that
some people don't read the Communications and to save a tree by
allowing them to opt out. Because ACM required me to sign a statement
saying I would behave ethically, I felt myself ethically bound to
resign as a member because I felt bad about the wasted trees.
Further, I used to write for ACM's Lisp Pointers, and I found their policy
of not paying their writers marginal, but I tolerated it. After a while,
though, the idea of having to pay for a subscription to the magazine just
to see the article I'd written that they were charging others for was a bit
much. (Requiring authors not only to yield publishing copyright but also to
allow others to be able to photocopy published articles also miffed me as an
unpaid author. It's not the sharing that bothers me--it's that it was a
policy of take-take-take.)
Just last week, I attended an ACM-sponsored conference. The cost was
$100 higher for non-members (i.e., me) than for members. It only
costs $91 to join ACM, so I suppose from an economic standpoint that I
should have joined the ACM to get the "special entrance fee". But I
didn't feel that way. I just felt like they were playing financial
games with me and I didn't like it.
I also abhored the ACM policy of tacking "optional additional
donations and fees" onto my membership dues and making me "opt out" of
them instead of asking me to voluntarily "opt in". It puts one in the
awkward position of feeling bad for lining out the obviously-intended
contributions rather than in the position of feeling good about being
generous if one can afford to be.
I have come to the belief that ACM is just a publishing house with a
special angle on marketing--by making their subscribers think of
themselves as "members" they have better leverage to be able to assure they
will continue to subscribe. It is my personal opinion that their business
practices are not up to the standards they require of their members and
I really want nothing further to do with them. Pretty much the same kind
of "tricky marketing" that causes people to view Disney World as a theme
park that sells toys rather than as a shopping center that has rides. All
just in your matter of perspective, I suppose. But as I get older, I get
more cynical about these kinds of things.
In its partial defense, the ACM has helped some conferences to happen
that wouldn't otherwise have been able to happen. But then, Bill
Gates just donated a bunch of money to MIT and I don't feel that
absolves him of his other social responsibilities either. The fact is
that in both cases, the acts taken are good for business, and it's
hard to look at it and see it as purely "generosity".
The only thing I've ever seen the ACM do that made me feel
unambiguously good about it as an organization to belong to was (as I
recall--it was a while ago) coming out with a statement against the
government crypto policy in the name of the members. And even then, I
don't recall having been consulted first. I would have surely
supported such a statement, but I hate it when organizations I belong
to speak in my name or in the name of the majority of the members
without first consulting that majority.
All of the above is just my personal opinion. If you have any questions
about ACM's present policies, from which I've tried to distance myself
personally, you should feel free to contact them directly.
Still, if you're wondering why you don't see me clamoring to have them
be involved in an online publication, Lisp or otherwise, those are the
reasons. We can publish fine on our own--no need to involve ACM.
The forums are here--web, newsgroups, etc. You just have to use them.
In article <···············@world.std.com>,
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> wrote:
> Still, if you're wondering why you don't see me clamoring to have them
> be involved in an online publication, Lisp or otherwise, those are the
> reasons.
> We can publish fine on our own--no need to involve ACM.
> The forums are here--web, newsgroups, etc. You just have to use them.
>
The trouble with publishing on your own is that in avoids the very useful
process of review. There is lots of good stuff in newgroups and on the web,
but you have to wade through tons of crap in order to find it. A web or
newsgroup based lisp journal with some kind of refeering and editing
mechanism in place would be a good thing.
For an example of a free, web-based refeered journal see
http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/. For an example of a newsgroup based refereed
journal see comp.ai.jair.announce and comp.ai.jair.papers
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
From: Fernando D. Mato Mira
Subject: Re: New ACM Lisp magazine?
Date:
Message-ID: <37144E9E.A3916C@iname.com>
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Even now, with an ACM online library, it seems more important to ACM to
> count members as "people advertised to" than it is to acknowledge that
> some people don't read the Communications and to save a tree by
> allowing them to opt out. Because ACM required me to sign a statement
I hate being forced to pay for "Communications". It's one of the most boring
magazines around.
BTW, until there's print-quality `Dynabooks', online won't cut it for me.
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720
www.csem.ch www.vrai.com ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:15:27 +0200, "Fernando D. Mato Mira"
<········@iname.com> wrote:
>BTW, until there's print-quality `Dynabooks', online won't cut it
>for me.
Given the quality of printing of most technical,
not-so-widely-distributed magazines I've seen, I don't know what do
you lose with having an on-line magazine available in PDF or
postscript. Good color pictures, maybe? ;)
A few years ago, I received for a while the magazine of FIG (the Forth
Interest Group), and any person reasonably familiarized with Quark
XPress and with access to a medium-to-good laser printer should be
able to hack something better. Contents was good; presentation was
not.
/L/e/k/t/u
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBNxREZP4C0a0jUw5YEQJw/wCgy8Fi8p0hMvt7lCxL6gCLvlCxhaAAmgLH
gWcaILP1x40Uo5E61JrhJHq+
=v+Dh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> Given the quality of printing of most technical,
> not-so-widely-distributed magazines I've seen, I don't know what do
> you lose with having an on-line magazine available in PDF or
> postscript. Good color pictures, maybe? ;)
>
> A few years ago, I received for a while the magazine of FIG (the Forth
> Interest Group), and any person reasonably familiarized with Quark
> XPress and with access to a medium-to-good laser printer should be
> able to hack something better. Contents was good; presentation was
> not.
What's the point if your're going to print them? Maybe less quality,
slower, more expensive and more environmentally unfriendly. At what
reading percentage is this better than bulk printing? Some magazines
are read pretty much from A-Z when you're interested enough
to subscribe to them (Lisp Pointers, IEEE Micro, ..). I know, sometimes
you're really interested but you can't justify the time (SIGSIM, SIGPLAN,
SIGDA, etc
for me).
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720
www.csem.ch www.vrai.com ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:19:17 +0200, "Fernando D. Mato Mira"
<········@iname.com> wrote:
>What's the point if your're going to print them?
I would *not* print them; I'd use Ghostscript/GSView or Acrobat to
read them from my computer. But still, even if you want to print an
on-line magazine, distribution cost throught internet is reduced to
(almost) zero. That makes sense, IMHO.
>Maybe less quality, slower, more expensive and more environmentally
>unfriendly.
As I've said, the "less quality" point is relative; maybe now things
are different, but I don't remember CACM as a professional-looking,
glossy magazine :) Slower? Certainly not slower to make and even less
to distribute. More expensive? Why, exactly? And I'd say *less*
environmentally unfriendly because less copies would be printed (not
everyone would bother to do it).
/L/e/k/t/u
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBNxRy1P4C0a0jUw5YEQJ0jQCfVogUBNccBZcNJU5M4FGHXglMeWMAnim7
YDa1UrvmJ41+OUNUi96LlOEU
=Fm+Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> I would *not* print them; I'd use Ghostscript/GSView or Acrobat to
> read them from my computer.
Back to my `screen is not good enough for me' point then.
> But still, even if you want to print an
> on-line magazine, distribution cost throught internet is reduced to
> (almost) zero. That makes sense, IMHO.
There's no zero cost in transporting paper and toner to your location,
though.
>
> >Maybe less quality, slower, more expensive and more environmentally
> >unfriendly.
>
> As I've said, the "less quality" point is relative; maybe now things
> are different, but I don't remember CACM as a professional-looking,
> glossy magazine :)
Hence `maybe'.
> Slower? Certainly not slower to make and even less
> to distribute.
It depends on your frame of reference. I don't have to think about
a magazine flying home. However, when I send something to a printer,
I usually walk up to it before it's finished. I just can't wait. There's
also
contention/separation/refeed issues on a shared printer.
> More expensive? Why, exactly? And I'd say *less*
> environmentally unfriendly because less copies would be printed (not
> everyone would bother to do it).
That why I talked about `interested enough to subscribe', `publication
interest density'
and `time management'. I would not subscribe to CACM for one or two
articles I might
read in a year, neither to SIGSAM again (for most articles, you really
have to be an specialist
to be interested/go through it).
So, and additional advantage of online publications is that they make up
for the lack of trial
subscriptions (still, one should be able to look at representative
samples w/o having to subscribe
to the electronic library).
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720
www.csem.ch www.vrai.com ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 10:20:54 +0200, "Fernando D. Mato Mira"
<········@iname.com> wrote:
>Back to my `screen is not good enough for me' point then.
Well, the PDF or PS version would allow you to print it and read it as
a normal magazine, and I could use Acrobat and not accumulate tons of
wasted paper for which I have not the space. That's the best of both
worlds, isn't?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but, let's say someone would publish
an on-line Lisp magazine, of a content quality similar to something
out of the ACM (with peer review, etc.), and either at an inexpensive
price or maybe even free. Wouldn't you download it and print it?
Wouldn't it be easier and faster to produce and distribute, more
"environmentally friendly" and potentially cheaper than a traditional,
printed version? Even without the "maybe even free" part, I certainly
would prefer such a product than a conventional printed magazine (USA
to Spain air-mail more or less doubles the price tag, and surface-mail
is like watching a snail race, or the movement of glaciers). So I
really don't understand what do you object to. I think you're saying
that you just would like better a printed magazine. OK, me too if it
is cheap, it's high quality (both in contents and appearance) and
comes fast. Otherwise, no.
And, possibly (thought I don't have the figures to sustain that claim)
a modern, printed Lisp Pointers is not economically viable but an
on-line version is. So I'd rather have an on-line lisp magazine that
none at all (our current situation, OTOH).
>There's no zero cost in transporting paper and toner to your
>location, though.
No. But I suppose you *wouldn't* have a printer just to print an
on-line magazine, uh? Or are you going to count its price against the
cost of such a magazine, too?
>It depends on your frame of reference. I don't have to think about
>a magazine flying home. However, when I send something to a printer,
>I usually walk up to it before it's finished. I just can't wait.
>There's also contention/separation/refeed issues on a shared printer.
Are you objecting against an on-line magazine for your personal use
and reasons (that I can understand OK) or against the concept? Do you
seriously think it wouldn't be good for the lisp community?
/L/e/k/t/u
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBNxWoyP4C0a0jUw5YEQIdFQCfY0W9K93eLHg0wvw9JxzxVgrZ844AoOOE
PwtyQ03AqGSnn8qB/h4oruw8
=tHsB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Basically, my point is that sometimes
people suggest to replace a printed publication
only by an online version, or even worse,
companies will talk about `ecological friendliness'
when all they want is save some bucks by avoiding
to provide printed documentation. A typical
answer is `well, you have the PDF to print it'.
THAT IS NOT THE SAME.
Apoint I overlooked before when talking about `slow'
and `expensive' was the worst one: after getting my
document lased, I still have to climb one floor, get the thermal
binding machine to heat up, align all pages, select a cover of the
appropriate size,
put everything in the machine (and hold it, this one does not work as well
as the one at EPFL,
so it'll take at least 5 min more for an unsatisfactory result). All that
eats up
at least 15 minutes of my time, and that is _very_ expensive. The
secretaries
have better things to do, too.
A related issue is that it's easier to identify real publications than
custom-printed ones bound with generic covers (don't tell me I also
have to go printing colored cover-covers).
Also, custom-printed pubs encourage ecological misbehavior at certain
times (eg: moving. "Why don't you just throw those? You can print them
again
when you need them"). Even if you have the sources, you won't like to
throw
away nicely printed versions.
If a publication never existed in paper form before, you won't miss
it. However, one must still wonder at a certain volume level, whether
it wouldn't make sense to provide a printed version too.
Economically, some publications may have to drop their printed versions.
Talking about ACM, there are some other things which are just a waste of
paper.
Some newsletters are pretty lame (eg: OS Review, SIGGRAPH) and you
just subscribe in reality to get the conference proceedings.
Both things have their place. Electronic publications are just great for
searching. But
then, while I haven't got a personal electronic subscription to ACM, I
would not doubt
about getting the whole thing in CDROM, if the price was right (say, $50
per year,
I would still have to add about $150 for selected paper versions).
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720
www.csem.ch www.vrai.com ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 15:16:52 +0200, "Fernando D. Mato Mira"
<········@iname.com> wrote:
>Basically, my point is that sometimes
>people suggest to replace a printed publication
>only by an online version, or even worse,
>companies will talk about `ecological friendliness'
>when all they want is save some bucks by avoiding
>to provide printed documentation. A typical
>answer is `well, you have the PDF to print it'.
>THAT IS NOT THE SAME.
OK, I agree with you in all counts. I wouldn't want, on a generic
basis, to replace printed magazines with on-line ones.
But Paolo Amoroso talked about the possibility of a new Lisp
publication by the ACM (or others). And I happen to think that, while
an ACM printed publication seems far from probable (I'm talking
money-wise, of course), an on-line one still could be made; I know I'd
be willing to pay for it.
/L/e/k/t/u
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBNxXthf4C0a0jUw5YEQLYSQCgjqMEX18hXbLezXSE15F7YQvQFusAn17a
bYP2kf+1d7rPUZ5Ss/u6iKmU
=KwMV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> But Paolo Amoroso talked about the possibility of a new Lisp
> publication by the ACM (or others). And I happen to think that, while
> an ACM printed publication seems far from probable (I'm talking
> money-wise, of course), an on-line one still could be made; I know I'd
> be willing to pay for it.
As I said before, I understand that it might only be possible to have
and online version. However, why having to pay to ACM, when people
could just post here an URL to their paper if they had something
interesting
to say?
I think the traditional model does not work for this. I understand the
value
of refereeing, but I don't see why ACM should get any money. I would
be willing to pay if the money went to:
1. Compensating reviewers (no maffias)
2. Compensating authors (unless they keep their copyright, in which case
they
are paid by getting their publications improved).
3. Fund FREE (but not `GPL everything') tools desperately needed, for
example:
- Lisp-based C++ frontend
- CMUCL
- CLIM
- Garnet
I guess everybody would agree to volunteer and just go for 3).
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720
www.csem.ch www.vrai.com ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
"Fernando D. Mato Mira" wrote:
> 3. Fund FREE (but not `GPL everything') tools desperately needed, for
> example:
> - Lisp-based C++ frontend
> - CMUCL
> - CLIM
> - Garnet
I would agree to drop CMUCL and CLIM to get support
from the Lisp vendors. Also, given that commercial alternatives
to those exist, it's probably a good idea to invest in things w/o
a large enough market base.
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720
www.csem.ch www.vrai.com ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 18:07:11 +0200, Fernando D. Mato Mira
<········@iname.com> posted:
>"Fernando D. Mato Mira" wrote:
>
>> 3. Fund FREE (but not `GPL everything') tools desperately needed,
>> for example:
>> - Lisp-based C++ frontend
>> - CMUCL
>> - CLIM
>> - Garnet
>
>I would agree to drop CMUCL and CLIM to get support
>from the Lisp vendors. Also, given that commercial alternatives
>to those exist, it's probably a good idea to invest in things w/o
>a large enough market base.
This is a very *bad* reason to "drop" CMUCL and CLIM; if gaining the
vendors' support is so important, then I'd think that the real point
of the exercise would be to reject the notion of even bothering with
"free" tools, as the *RIGHT* thing to do would obviously be for people
to buy all of these products at full price from the vendors.
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
········@hex.net - "What have you contributed to free software today?..."
"Christopher B. Browne" wrote:
> >I would agree to drop CMUCL and CLIM to get support
> >from the Lisp vendors. Also, given that commercial alternatives
> >to those exist, it's probably a good idea to invest in things w/o
> >a large enough market base.
>
> This is a very *bad* reason to "drop" CMUCL and CLIM; if gaining the
> vendors' support is so important, then I'd think that the real point
> of the exercise would be to reject the notion of even bothering with
> "free" tools, as the *RIGHT* thing to do would obviously be for people
> to buy all of these products at full price from the vendors.
I'm just saying I'm willing to make tradeoffs to optimize the benefit
to the Lisp community.
Now, an important point is there's always someone willing to
work on some projects w/o getting payed. Maybe the money should
be used for those things that are important and nobody would want
to do (eg: the Lisp-based C++ frontend).
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720
www.csem.ch www.vrai.com ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 18:01:20 +0200, "Fernando D. Mato Mira"
<········@iname.com> wrote:
>I think the traditional model does not work for this. I understand
>the value of refereeing, but I don't see why ACM should get any
>money.
Again, I'm mostly in agreement with you.
What would be needed?
1.- Someone trusted enough by the Lisp community to act as editor.
2.- A group of people, with the technical know-how, to act as
reviewers. There are quite a few in this newsgroup (Pitman, Naggum,
Nikolov and others spring to mind, although of course they should
volunteer :)
3.- Web space and perhaps some web programming (to host the magazine,
prepare forms for subscribing, etc.)
4.- Someone to compose each issue, etc.
5.- Someone to do the administrative tasks (mail, etc.).
Of course, most probably 1, 4 and 5 could/would(/should?) be done by
the same person, at least initially.
Any takers? :)
/L/e/k/t/u
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBNxYO1P4C0a0jUw5YEQKFMwCbBP9GycR6iyqQLiukAYXqEQ7VgGQAnR1q
TDbVO+kuzJbgyrpKPZNt+RKm
=osUP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:08:11 GMT, Juanma Barranquero
<···········@laley-actualidad.es> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 18:01:20 +0200, "Fernando D. Mato Mira"
><········@iname.com> wrote:
>
>>I think the traditional model does not work for this. I understand
>>the value of refereeing, but I don't see why ACM should get any
>>money.
>
>Again, I'm mostly in agreement with you.
In effect, what "the world is looking for" is something not unlike a
Lisp equivalent to The Perl Journal. <http://www.tpj.com/>
It was originally established as a self-publishing newsletter, and has
since grown actually to the point where I've seen it on newsstands.
Properties might be something like:
(setq journal
'('name "Lisp Quarterly"
'cost "$25/annum"
'frequency 'quarterly
'size "40 pages"
'includes "sometimes has a CD-ROM with archival material"
'accepts "Scheme and CL and Elisp articles")
>What would be needed?
>
>1.- Someone trusted enough by the Lisp community to act as editor.
>
>2.- A group of people, with the technical know-how, to act as
>reviewers. There are quite a few in this newsgroup (Pitman, Naggum,
>Nikolov and others spring to mind, although of course they should
>volunteer :)
Remember: *Informal* means that there doesn't forcibly have to be a
*lot* of reviewing.
>3.- Web space and perhaps some web programming (to host the magazine,
>prepare forms for subscribing, etc.)
This is probably the easy part.
>4.- Someone to compose each issue, etc.
This is a big task, and one of two of critical importance.
The *other* big task is the solicitation of articles. You've got to
convince people to write material. This is a bigger issue than it looks
at first...
- In the academic world, the principle of "publish or perish" is strong;
authors are often *really* looking to get published in refereed journals
in order to get "tenure material."
- Some will be quite willing to write for free, for the love of getting
ideas out.
- Others will be willing to write for free as they're paid for
something else that they do.
- And some may really be able to use "getting paid." A full-time
editor-type person would be an example of such...
I would tend to think that "The Lisp Quarterly" would value input from
all of the above, but be largely unable to reward those needing
"academic publication."
Getting results to satisfy all of those needs is the big challenge...
--
Who needs fault-tolerant computers when there's obviously an ample
market of fault-tolerant users?
········@ntlug.org- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/langlisp.html>
Christopher Browne wrote:
> Properties might be something like:
OK. My own opinions:
>
> (setq journal
> '('name "Lisp Quarterly"
Too boring
> 'cost "$25/annum"
We should see how much people can afford, and what's the market size.
Besides student/full/library subscriptions, we should have financial aid.
$25 could be a lot of money for people in India, for example.
I'd target a revenue of at least $100K ($25K for administration, $75K to pay
for the equivalent of a full-time developer).
$50 would be fine with me.
> >1.- Someone trusted enough by the Lisp community to act as editor.
0. Someone trusted to be _treasurer_.
> >2.- A group of people, with the technical know-how, to act as
> >reviewers. There are quite a few in this newsgroup (Pitman, Naggum,
> >Nikolov and others spring to mind, although of course they should
> >volunteer :)
`Reviewer trees' are easy. `Volunteer' should mean just agreeing to receive
an email notification. If you have the time, you answer saying you commit to
review
the paper. You are free too pass it along to somebody you consider
qualified. You
are encouraged to notify that something is not your area of expertise (more
efficient,
and you'll be bothered less).
`others' 'in the cl* groups include Barry, Duane, Marco, Harley.. w/o
counting
the paper/book/software famous people. I found people tend to leave others
to respond
to what they consider trivial. So if someone is silent that's a good sign
(she's probably writing Lisp).
> - In the academic world, the principle of "publish or perish" is strong;
> authors are often *really* looking to get published in refereed journals
> in order to get "tenure material."
Why can't it be refereed then?
Another question is whether it would be possible to just `associate' to ACM.
For example, they get 50% of the revenue of subscriptions going through
them.
I don't know how SIGs work regarding this matter.
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720
www.csem.ch www.vrai.com ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
"Fernando D. Mato Mira" wrote:
> `others' 'in the cl* groups include Barry, Duane, Marco, Harley.. w/o
> counting
> the paper/book/software famous people. I found people tend to leave others
> to respond
> to what they consider trivial. So if someone is silent that's a good sign
> (she's probably writing Lisp).
Wow! Simon! Don't forget him. The guy has an average of 1 post/year or
something!
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720
www.csem.ch www.vrai.com ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 16 Apr 1999 00:54:31 GMT, ········@news.hex.net (Christopher
Browne) wrote:
>In effect, what "the world is looking for" is something not unlike
>a Lisp equivalent to The Perl Journal. <http://www.tpj.com/>
Yes, I'm also a perler and that's what I was thinking of,
specifically.
>It was originally established as a self-publishing newsletter, and
>has since grown actually to the point where I've seen it on
>newsstands.
OTOH, and I'd like to be proven wrong, the potential "customer base"
for a Perl magazine is wider than for a Lisp one.
> 'cost "$25/annum"
That dependes. The point, I suppose, is being economically viable to
pay the contributors, etc., not making money. I'm not qualified to
estimate neither the number of people interested in that nor the costs
of doing it.
> 'accepts "Scheme and CL and Elisp articles")
And Dylan, and any other Lisp-family language, uh? (Well, not sure
about AutoLisp :)
>Remember: *Informal* means that there doesn't forcibly have to be a
>*lot* of reviewing.
Yes, but I think that it should aim to respectability, for some
definition of it. Quality of contents would be to me (as a
buyer/subscriber) as important a goal as price or more, meaning I
won't object to paying more than your estimated $25 (even to $100,
maybe more) if the content is high-quality.
>This is a big task, and one of two of critical importance.
Yes, I know. I work in a publisher and worked two years for a computer
magazines' publisher (the Spanish subsidiary of IDG Communications).
>The *other* big task is the solicitation of articles. You've got to
>convince people to write material. This is a bigger issue than it
>looks at first...
I'd even say this is *the* real problem. Look, we're talking about a
Lisp magazine and how many people has showed any interest on the idea?
Four, five?
/L/e/k/t/u
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBNxcUEP4C0a0jUw5YEQKe0QCdGXe+AOiueVs/YXhrB1d56PEeB6YAni/o
kma1I1AD6/dFWjhIuR6h/WB4
=O5qI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> > 'accepts "Scheme and CL and Elisp articles")
>
> And Dylan, and any other Lisp-family language, uh? (Well, not sure
> about AutoLisp :)
Sorry guys, but if it's going to be refereed I _maybe_ we'll have to get
rid
of elisp and AutoLisp.
At least if it's printed I would not like to have pages wasted in that
kind of stuff.
AutoLisp people already have more appropriate publications where to show
their stuff.
However having AutoLisp column might enormously increase
the subscription numbers (I doubt more about elisp).
Before talking about organization, it's important to agree on a charter.
> Yes, I know. I work in a publisher and worked two years for a computer
> magazines' publisher (the Spanish subsidiary of IDG Communications).
This is interesting. Spain must be one two biggest publishing countries in
Europe.
But maybe it's still not so competitive compared with the States,
specially
taking shipping into account.
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720
www.csem.ch www.vrai.com ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:11:18 +0200, "Fernando D. Mato Mira"
<········@iname.com> wrote:
>Sorry guys, but if it's going to be refereed I _maybe_ we'll have to
>get rid of elisp and AutoLisp.
My reference to AutoLisp was meant as a joke. Elisp no; I think it is
a reasonable Lisp to solve certain problems (the calc package is a
good proof of it).
>Before talking about organization, it's important to agree on a
>charter.
Sure. But, are we a-talkin' about organization? :)
>This is interesting. Spain must be one two biggest publishing
>countries in Europe.
Certainly, the raw number of new titles published each year is
amazing. But print runs are short. In the SF arena, for example, a
typical novel (let's say Neal Stephenson's _SNOW CRASH_, that I'm
translating and will be published in a few months) has runs of 2,500
to 3,000 and most of them never get re-printed.
>But maybe it's still not so competitive compared with the States,
>specially taking shipping into account.
Not sure, but I think you're right.
/L/e/k/t/u
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBNxcwc/4C0a0jUw5YEQI0+gCg48OWG1gbMVBLZS4Vi784ypvVoNAAnj02
dhW1s3qoBOweED3OGaTfoxbT
=fwwh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Fernando D. Mato Mira
Subject: ALU (was: New ACM Lisp magazine?)
Date:
Message-ID: <37173871.A37A83D5@iname.com>
Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> I'd even say this is *the* real problem. Look, we're talking about a
> Lisp magazine and how many people has showed any interest on the idea?
> Four, five?
Actually, I would say I'm more interested in generating revenue to
fund lisp projects than the maganize itself. When you think like
that, even $100 is cheap. You're buying _software_, not a journal.
Maybe we should be discussing about a paying ALU.
Who's up to write an email address scavenger (and who to
hit dejanews)?
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720
www.csem.ch www.vrai.com ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
On Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:17:37 +0200, Fernando D. Mato Mira <········@iname.com> posted:
>Juanma Barranquero wrote:
>
>> I'd even say this is *the* real problem. Look, we're talking about a
>> Lisp magazine and how many people has showed any interest on the idea?
>> Four, five?
>
>Actually, I would say I'm more interested in generating revenue to
>fund lisp projects than the maganize itself. When you think like
>that, even $100 is cheap. You're buying _software_, not a journal.
>
>Maybe we should be discussing about a paying ALU.
One approach: Offer pledges for things you want.
The Free Software Bazaar <http://visar.csustan.edu/bazaar/bazaar.html>
is trying to encourage people to offer money for things that they want
implemented.
There are projects there that seem to be languishing, but some have
been accomplished. None seem to offer really *substantial* amounts of
money, but it can doubtless grow...
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
········@hex.net - "What have you contributed to free software today?..."
[ replying to comp.lang.lisp only
http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/cross-posting.html ]
········@news.brownes.org (Christopher B. Browne) writes:
> One approach: Offer pledges for things you want.
I think this is a good idea. I've been trying to encourage CPSR
to do the same thing (so far with no success, but I keep hoping).
There is an issue in intellectual property that gets tangled up in
here and you have to be very careful, though. That doesn't mean it
can't be done, you just can't do it casually. When someone pays you
do to a work of intellectual porperty, the ownership can and often
does defaultly end up with the person who paid you. You can deal with
that to make the right thing happen by contract, of course.
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999 13:36:50 GMT, Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> posted:
>[ replying to comp.lang.lisp only
> http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/cross-posting.html ]
>········@news.brownes.org (Christopher B. Browne) writes:
>
>> One approach: Offer pledges for things you want.
>
>I think this is a good idea. I've been trying to encourage CPSR
>to do the same thing (so far with no success, but I keep hoping).
>
>There is an issue in intellectual property that gets tangled up in
>here and you have to be very careful, though. That doesn't mean it
>can't be done, you just can't do it casually. When someone pays you
>do to a work of intellectual porperty, the ownership can and often
>does defaultly end up with the person who paid you. You can deal with
>that to make the right thing happen by contract, of course.
The example of the "Free Software Bazaar"
<http://visar.csustan.edu/bazaar/bazaar.html> provides some guidance,
at least for participants:
``Can I specify a particular license in my request?
Yes you can. (The rules have been changed in this regard.) The license
you request has to conform to the Open Source definition though.
Because of certain incompatibilities between different free software
licenses, it is sometimes necessary to request a specific license or
group of licenses for the work to be useful at all.
Some people hold very strong convictions regarding which license is
the best. I think it would be wrong to try to further these
"political" goals with money instead of with arguments and I therefore
request that you use license specifications only if they are necessary
for technical reasons. As Linus put it: "he who writes the code gets
to choose his license, and nobody else gets to complain".''
The use of a third party "proxy" allows the rules in this regard to be
more visibly set down, which essentially corresponds to your mention
of "by contract."
There are various licenses specified at the "Bazaar;" many requests
expect the use of the GPL, others the LGPL, and there are a few that
specify the use of "BSD-style" licenses particularly for deploying
device drivers for the "BSDs."
Contrary to what some "GPL Advo-kids" promote, it *is* important to
look carefully at licenses *before* deploying code. The GPL is not
*always* the right answer, much as it is also not always the *wrong*
answer. People that skip "thinking about licensing" are looking to
get themselves in trouble...
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
········@hex.net - "What have you contributed to free software today?..."
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999 13:36:50 GMT, Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com>
wrote:
> I think this is a good idea. I've been trying to encourage CPSR
^^^^
> to do the same thing (so far with no success, but I keep hoping).
What does CPSR stand for?
Paolo
--
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
·······@mclink.it (Paolo Amoroso) writes:
> > I think this is a good idea. I've been trying to encourage CPSR [...]
> What does CPSR stand for?
http://www.cpsr.org/ Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
> The *other* big task is the solicitation of articles. You've got to
> convince people to write material. This is a bigger issue than it looks
> at first...
This was certainly one of the problems that led to the demise of ACM Lisp
Pointers, which was published by ACM SIGPLAN. I doubt whether ACM would
want to start another Lisp publication so soon after its previous Lisp
publication had folded. OTOH you're talking about an electronic magazine,
so the economics would be different.
Will
In article <·················@iname.com>,
Fernando D. Mato Mira <········@iname.com> wrote:
: people
: could just post here an URL to their paper if they had something
: interesting
: to say?
This does not work.
I know because I've recently tried to do this in several newsgroups.
I'll demonstrate here in this newsgroup.
After operating systems and compilers,
TSIA is the third revolution in application support.
Details are available at http://www.tsia.org .
Well, that certainly sounds interesting,
but people won't read it,
because it does not get past their filters.
On usenet and elsewhere,
there is so much information,
that one only can read a small fraction.
In order to try to read the most interesting fraction,
people (consciously or unconsciously) use filters.
For example in this newsgroup,
I read certain authors and certain thread topics.
Of course, these often lead me to other authors and other topics
A LISP magazine is another example of a filter.
For each of its articles,
one knows that in addition to the author,
at least the editor found it interesting.
burkhard
Burkhard Dietrich Burow wrote:
> In article <·················@iname.com>,
> Fernando D. Mato Mira <········@iname.com> wrote:
> : people
> : could just post here an URL to their paper if they had something
> : interesting
> : to say?
>
> This does not work.
> I know because I've recently tried to do this in several newsgroups.
>
> I'll demonstrate here in this newsgroup.
>
> After operating systems and compilers,
> TSIA is the third revolution in application support.
> Details are available at http://www.tsia.org .
>
> Well, that certainly sounds interesting,
> but people won't read it,
> because it does not get past their filters.
What filters? `brain filters'?
I saw your posting yesterday in another group and I hit the page
but went not further.
Reasons:
1. Page design does not flash an idea so compelling that you want to
know more.
2. Gives impression of another instance of bizarre theoretical research
that will go nowhere because it comes from some obscure place.
3. Another `.org' set up by some obnoxious youngster?
4. Too distant from current duties/goals. Don't have the time for it
now.
It's a marketing thing. Maybe you indeed have a good `product', but
people don't even know its for them.
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720
www.csem.ch www.vrai.com ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
In article <·················@iname.com>,
Fernando D. Mato Mira <········@iname.com> wrote:
: 1. Page design does not flash an idea so compelling that you want to
^^^^^^^^^^^
: know more.
: 2. Gives impression of another instance of bizarre theoretical research
: that will go nowhere because it comes from some obscure place.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: 3. Another `.org' set up by some obnoxious youngster?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: 4. Too distant from current duties/goals. Don't have the time for it now.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: It's a marketing thing. Maybe you indeed have a good `product', but
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: people don't even know its for them.
Thanks for participating in the demonstration.
Your response corroborates that people don't have time to read everything,
so their filters only let through what they think might interest them.
burkhard
Burkhard Dietrich Burow wrote:
> Thanks for participating in the demonstration.
> Your response corroborates that people don't have time to read everything,
> so their filters only let through what they think might interest them.
That was precisely the point.
But it's important to take care of that. And it's not just the Net.
I remember years ago I would not buy/read Springer-Verlag monographs because
the
typography was so bad (still today I rarely buy from them because
they are expensive and many times `marginal').
That is not to say you can't be really missing out on something
great there.
It's just a non-admissible heuristic function. Sometimes you might get bitten,
but you don't have enough time to read _all_ great things anyway..
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720
www.csem.ch www.vrai.com ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
In article <·················@iname.com>,
"Fernando D. Mato Mira" <········@iname.com> writes:
> ...
> But it's important to take care of that. And it's not just the Net.
> I remember years ago I would not buy/read Springer-Verlag monographs because
> the
> typography was so bad (still today I rarely buy from them because
> they are expensive and many times `marginal').
definitely better reasons not buying from them than the identity confusion
with the other Springer that hurt them a while ago.
> ...
Hartmann Schaffer
In article <············@pandora.ifh.de> , Burkhard Dietrich Burow
<·····@ifh.de> wrote:
> In article <·················@iname.com>,
> Fernando D. Mato Mira <········@iname.com> wrote:
> : people
> : could just post here an URL to their paper if they had something
> : interesting
> : to say?
>
> This does not work.
> I know because I've recently tried to do this in several newsgroups.
>
> I'll demonstrate here in this newsgroup.
>
> After operating systems and compilers,
> TSIA is the third revolution in application support.
> Details are available at http://www.tsia.org .
>
Well, this didn't get past my filter. If I saw just this blurb without the
surrounding context, I would immediately flag it as spam and move on to the
next message.
Know your audience. This is a technical newsgroup. Your announcement says
nothing about TSIA that would help the reader decide whether or not to
follow the link. Your description is pure hyperbole.
I've chased many a link that I've seen posted in this newsgroup. The links,
however, have been accompanied by enough context (an abstract, an
explanation, or a recommendation by a respected poster) to help me make that
decision. You've knocked down a strawman (unintentionally, I hope) by
posting a message that is not clearly of interest to readers of this group
and observing that no one took the bait.
To me, the good news behind this exercise is that spammers will get little
satisfaction from posts to this group. (Please understand that I am not
calling _you_ a spammer. I am simply observing that your _announcement_
fits the same profile as much of the spam that pollutes my downlink every
day. And, that's why, IMO, you got a poor response.)
> Well, that certainly sounds interesting,
> but people won't read it,
> because it does not get past their filters.
>
> On usenet and elsewhere,
> there is so much information,
> that one only can read a small fraction.
> In order to try to read the most interesting fraction,
> people (consciously or unconsciously) use filters.
>
> For example in this newsgroup,
> I read certain authors and certain thread topics.
> Of course, these often lead me to other authors and other topics
>
> A LISP magazine is another example of a filter.
> For each of its articles,
> one knows that in addition to the author,
> at least the editor found it interesting.
>
A magazine is just another source of information. Intrinsically, it has no
more (or less) value than the web or Usenet or a refereed journal or
word-of-mouth. We should not uncritically accept information from _any_
source. I try to understand the motivation behind the message by forming an
impression of the preferences, biases, and agenda of the publisher.
I can understand that you'd want to delegate your filtering to the
magazine's editor; s/he saves you some time by making decisions for you. At
the same time, you're giving up the ability to see what the editor has
rejected, some of which may actually be interested to you. In a publishing
process controlled by a central decision-maker, you'll never know what
you're missing.
> burkhard
--
David B. Lamkins <http://www.teleport.com/~dlamkins/>
There are many ways to abbreviate something, but only one way not to.
On 16 Apr 1999 07:16:03 GMT, Burkhard Dietrich Burow <·····@ifh.de> wrote:
>In article <·················@iname.com>,
>Fernando D. Mato Mira <········@iname.com> wrote:
>: people
>: could just post here an URL to their paper if they had something
>: interesting
>: to say?
>
>This does not work.
>I know because I've recently tried to do this in several newsgroups.
>
>I'll demonstrate here in this newsgroup.
>
> After operating systems and compilers,
> TSIA is the third revolution in application support.
> Details are available at http://www.tsia.org .
>
>Well, that certainly sounds interesting,
>but people won't read it,
>because it does not get past their filters.
Anything that calls itself "a revolution" tends to make peoples'
bogosity detectors go off, particularly if it tries to place itself
amongst the "important defining structures" (e.g. - "operating systems
and compilers").
I'm still pretty ticked off over the widely spread claims about "fourth
generation languages," which are nothing of the sort.
And people are still making fun of the Japanese "Fifth Generation
Computing" Project. (Yes, it came up with some nice tools and
understandings of the use of Guarded Horn Clauses. As "projects
purportedly to redefine computing" go, it was an utter failure.)
Note that if your article goes to the editor of a magazine of some sort,
much of the same sorts of "filtering" that you dislike on Usenet will
take still place. You're not likely to get TSIA through to an
"academically-reviewed" journal; it might get through as an article to
something like an ACM SIG[Whatever] magazine, where most of the articles
are "fluff," or get largely ignored as an article in a magazine like
"The Perl Journal."
What you need to do, if TSIA is to have an impact on anything, is to get
a few other people to implement things using it, rather than simply
trumpeting it to the world. Even if it is "for real," when it is a bit
difficult to distinguish between it and "exceedingly less reputable"
ideas, people will indeed filter it out. If there are five *useful
projects* providing useful results, that will grow interest a whole lot
more than getting a two page article in a (probably somewhat obscure)
Lisp journal...
--
"We build confusing systems; we haven't done a very good job," Allchin
(Microsoft Sr. VP) admitted. - InfoWorld
········@hex.net- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/computing.html>
In article <····················@news2.giganews.com>,
········@news.hex.net (Christopher Browne) wrote:
>On 16 Apr 1999 07:16:03 GMT, Burkhard Dietrich Burow <·····@ifh.de> wrote:
>> After operating systems and compilers,
>> TSIA is the third revolution in application support.
>> Details are available at http://www.tsia.org .
>
>Anything that calls itself "a revolution" tends to make peoples'
>bogosity detectors go off,
Apologies.
Instead of 'revolution', I should have said 'advance'.
A revolution throws away the old (e.g. the French Revolution),
while an advance includes the old and goes beyond it
(e.g. Einstein's gravity is an advance on Newton's).
> particularly if it tries to place itself
>amongst the "important defining structures" (e.g. - "operating systems
>and compilers").
TSIA is an advance in computing,
but the effect on developers will be revolutionary.
TSIA moves application execution details from the application developer
to the systems developer.
Compilers and operating systems do the same.
>Note that if your article goes to the editor of a magazine of some sort,
>much of the same sorts of "filtering" that you dislike on Usenet will
>take still place. ^^^^^^^^^^^
I apologize if in any way I implied that I dislike filtering on Usenet
or anywhere else. I thought I had made it clear that I consider it
essential, since it is impossible to read everything.
(Aside:
I do suspect that some people overestimate the efficiency of their filter.
I suspect that some even think their filter is 100% efficient,
i.e. they think they don't accidentally miss any of the 'good stuff'.
I don't think 100% efficiency is possible.
In trying to maximize the purity,
i.e. minimizing the crap contaminating the 'good stuff',
some good stuff will be lost.
If I'm parsing it correctly, you essentially say the same thing:
>Even if it is "for real," when it is a bit
>difficult to distinguish between it and "exceedingly less reputable"
>ideas, people will indeed filter it out.
)
>You're not likely to get TSIA through to an
>"academically-reviewed" journal;
Are you commenting on TSIA or on journals?
If you're commenting on TSIA,
I would very much appreciate to hear the arguments behind your judgment,
especially if they are based on content and not on context.
If you're commenting on journals,
perhaps you'd like to share why you view them with suspicion.
Just to state the obvious, my DRAFT book is not suitable for a journal;
I aim to have it published as a book.
In contrast, an outline of TSIA or an article on one of its areas
is suitable for a journal.
>What you need to do, if TSIA is to have an impact on anything, is to get
>a few other people to implement things using it, rather than simply
>trumpeting it to the world.
Correct and TSIA is based on systems that have been implemented.
I provide some examples here:
1. Cilk-NOW
ftp://theory.lcs.mit.edu/pub/cilk/USENIX97.ps.gz
2. Linda-Piranha
http://www.cs.yale.edu/HTML/YALE/CS/Linda/papers/workshop.ps
3. Jade
http://www.cag.lcs.mit.edu/~rinard/paper/ppopp91.ps
4. Soft Instruction
ftp://ftp.cse.ucsc.edu/pub/tr/ucsc-crl-95-51.ps.Z
5. Nimrod
http://www.dgs.monash.edu.au/~davida/nimrod.html
Each of these systems provides an application with an
implicitly parallel, distributed, heterogeneous, adaptive, dynamic,
real-time, interactive, reliable, secure or other execution.
Each of these systems is able to do so because it requires an application
to execute in terms of tasks.
During its execution, a task is independent of all other
tasks. In contrast, during its execution, a process may depend on other
processes. In other words, processes communicate; tasks don't.
Though not immediately obvious,
not even to the creators of the above projects,
it turns out that most applications can execute in terms of tasks.
[This uses a form of continuations.
These are in Cilk-NOW, but are simplified and generalized by TSIA.]
If for nothing else,
TSIA should be of interest to fans of Lisp,
because tasks allow for very clean support
for streams and other 'advanced' language features.
>If there are five *useful
>projects* providing useful results, that will grow interest
...
Obviously I hope you are correct that useful projects will grow interest.
Though I don't know how you define useful.
e.g. I consider Cilk-NOW to be extremely useful,
even if it has never seen real-world use.
[I don't know whether it has or not.
I haven't found anything among the Cilk papers that says that it has.]
...
>a whole lot
>more than getting a two page article in a (probably somewhat obscure)
>Lisp journal...
Apologies, that I seem to have led you astray yet again.
I have no intention of getting an article into a Lisp journal.
(Of course someone else eventually may want to.)
My original reply merely wanted to say that something new has a better chance
of drawing attention in a journal (with a good reputation)
than with a news posting of a URL.
In any case, many thanks for giving me the opportunity
to introduce TSIA to fans of Lisp.
For my sake and theirs,
I hope that at least some of them take advantage of this opportunity.
burkhard
Although I agree with every one of the comments I've read against the
ACM specifically, and print journals generally, I still think it's a
good idea. (Some comments were c.l.l-only, not c.l.s.)
1. Any forum for reporting Lisp results is a good thing, and I, for one,
would read it and, I hope, contribute.
2. comp.lang.lisp is great, but I think we can also benefit from
something requiring a little more consideration and even, dare I say,
editing.
3. ACM Sigplan is fine, but it comes across to me as being both too
niche/nerdy, without actually providing the benefits of being
sufficiently Lisp specific nor technical.
4. Imprimatur (name dropping) helps. Association with ACM or whatever
is a good thing.
5. Anything is better than nothing, so either print or on-line is good.
In addition to the often mentioned advantage of readability, I also
believe that a print journal is more likely to be read by a
non-subscriber when the copy is seen laying around on the lunch room
table. A FREE (non-subscription) on-line journal might offer the same
advantages (through search engines) but a subscription-based one will
not.
6. Many people have wanted to have discussions and articles with varying
degrees of editorial oversight on the ALU pages, and all should be
possible when the darn thing gets set up under CL-HTTP, but who knows
when that will happen. (Don't get me started...) Rather than wait, I'd
be happy to offer free advice (!) to anyone who wants to just go ahead
and set up their own free but refereed journal at their own site, which
will be linked with the ALU site. (I think I'd rather have ACM
administer a print version, but I'll take what I can get. Besides, once
it exists, maybe there's some possibility of sharing "editorial
guidelines" or some such nonsense so that there are cross references,
etc., and the journal acts as an ACM "sister" publication or something.)
7. By all means, solicit opinions and help, but if you want something to
happen, you're going to have to take responsibility yourself. Decide
what you think is right and then do it -- without allowing formal
committees or newsgroups to get you bogged down in debates about what's
wrong with your plan. (Yes, I realize this contradicts point 4, so you
already see an example of the value of free advice.)
Paolo Amoroso wrote:
>
> I am an ACM http://www.acm.org/ student member. Thanks to the wonders of
> surface mail, I've just received the Dec. 1998 issue (Vol. 41, No.12) of
> the ACMemberNet newsletter. On page 13, the short article "Previews from
> ACM's Magazine Group" says:
>
> "The Magazine Group seeks to develop new print and electronic publications
> for ACM and welcomes comments and ideas. For more information on the
> Magazine Group's activities, please contact Executive Editor Jay Blickstein
> at ··········@acm.org or Managing Editor Jennifer Bruer at ·····@acm.org."
>
> I've written to suggest that they consider at least an electronic magazine
> devoted to the Lisp family of languages. I invite all potentially
> interested users, organizations and companies to contact ACM's Magazine
> Group.
>
> Any comments or opinions, especially from ACM members or insiders? Is this
> a good idea in the first place? What are its chances of success?
>
> Paolo
> --
> Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:05:47 -0500, "Howard R. Stearns" <······@elwood.com>
wrote:
> 6. Many people have wanted to have discussions and articles with varying
> degrees of editorial oversight on the ALU pages, and all should be
> possible when the darn thing gets set up under CL-HTTP, but who knows
Do you mean a Web-based discussion forum? If so, I personally prefer
offline technologies such as mailing lists or newsgroups. The reason is
summarized by what Negroponte said about Italian telephone fees, i.e. that
they are outrageous. This, however, may not be an issue for most other
users.
By the way, I'm willing to pay a 30-40$/year subscription--and probably
some more--for an electronic Lisp journal.
> 7. By all means, solicit opinions and help, but if you want something to
> happen, you're going to have to take responsibility yourself. Decide
> what you think is right and then do it -- without allowing formal
> committees or newsgroups to get you bogged down in debates about what's
> wrong with your plan. (Yes, I realize this contradicts point 4, so you
It's not clear to me whether you are inviting me personally or the Lisp
community to do whatever is right. In the former case, even taking into
account the contradiction with point 4 (i.e. imprimatur and name dropping),
it wouldn't probably make sense to have a Lisp journal with contributions
from leading authorities edited by a student (okay, Linus was a student
too, but that's where analogies end :-) However, I'm willing to contribute
by doing what a beginner can do, i.e. mostly mundane tasks.
Paolo
--
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
Paolo Amoroso wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:05:47 -0500, "Howard R. Stearns" <······@elwood.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 6. Many people have wanted to have discussions and articles with varying
> > degrees of editorial oversight on the ALU pages, and all should be
> > possible when the darn thing gets set up under CL-HTTP, but who knows
>
> Do you mean a Web-based discussion forum? If so, I personally prefer
> offline technologies such as mailing lists or newsgroups. The reason is
> summarized by what Negroponte said about Italian telephone fees, i.e. that
> they are outrageous. This, however, may not be an issue for most other
> users.
>
> By the way, I'm willing to pay a 30-40$/year subscription--and probably
> some more--for an electronic Lisp journal.
There's no reason that an electronic journal, either free or by
subscription, couldn't be automatically distributed as BOTH "user-pulls"
HTTP -and- as "user-subscribes" SMTP, with the user choosing how to
access it.
>
> > 7. By all means, solicit opinions and help, but if you want something to
> > happen, you're going to have to take responsibility yourself. Decide
> > what you think is right and then do it -- without allowing formal
> > committees or newsgroups to get you bogged down in debates about what's
> > wrong with your plan. (Yes, I realize this contradicts point 4, so you
>
> It's not clear to me whether you are inviting me personally or the Lisp
> community to do whatever is right. In the former case, even taking into
> account the contradiction with point 4 (i.e. imprimatur and name dropping),
> it wouldn't probably make sense to have a Lisp journal with contributions
> from leading authorities edited by a student (okay, Linus was a student
> too, but that's where analogies end :-) However, I'm willing to contribute
> by doing what a beginner can do, i.e. mostly mundane tasks.
There are no nobody's in e-space. If you feel you need guidance in
editing/review from people with a different skill-set than your own,
then you can get them to help. My point, however, is that the single
most important thing in making this happen is for someone to decide that
regardless of whether they have all the necessarry skills to do all the
necessarry jobs, they will, nonetheless assume responsbility for making
it happen. Dedication, drive and energy are the most important for
this, and it is precisely these qualitities that students excel at.
I can't say for sure, but I also think that it is likely that at least
some of the people that you might consider for reviewers/editors would
be happy to do so in cooperation with an enterprising student who
presents a well-thought out plan for success.
(You quote Negroponte, who I believe is a very smart and talented
person. And yet I think his considerable skills and energy in promoting
his ideas are at least as responsible as his ideas themselves in making
him well-known enough to be quoted.)
In short, "yes, I invite you personally to make things happen."
>
> Paolo
> --
> Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>