Re: CACM article (Feb 2009): "Compiler research: the next 50 years"

Max Hailperin <max@gustavus.edu>
Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:46:59 -0600

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
CACM article (Feb 2009): "Compiler research: the next 50 years" idbaxter@semdesigns.com (Ira Baxter) (2009-02-10)
Re: CACM article (Feb 2009): "Compiler research: the next 50 years" max@gustavus.edu (Max Hailperin) (2009-02-11)
Re: CACM article (Feb 2009): "Compiler research: the next 50 years" joevans@gmail.com (Jason Evans) (2009-02-12)
Re: CACM article (Feb 2009): "Compiler research: the next 50 years" max@gustavus.edu (Max Hailperin) (2009-02-14)
Re: CACM article (Feb 2009): "Compiler research: the next 50 years" idbaxter@semdesigns.com (Ira Baxter) (2009-02-14)
Re: CACM article (Feb 2009): "Compiler research: the next 50 years" cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2009-02-14)
Re: CACM article (Feb 2009): "Compiler research: the next 50 years" gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2009-02-14)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Max Hailperin <max@gustavus.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:46:59 -0600
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 09-02-027
Keywords: administrivia
Posted-Date: 11 Feb 2009 10:04:25 EST

> [For those of us whose ACM memberships expired a decade ago, what else
> does it say? -John]


For those of you, I would point out that you should really take a look
at the revitalized CACM and decide whether it merits reactivating your
membership. The CACM has not been so good since the 1970s, and
depending on your perspective, perhaps not even then. There is a
sample issue, which seems to be available without membership, at


http://cacm.acm.org/communications?pageIndex=2


  -max


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.