[fonc] Call for Papers for Workshops at AOSD 2012: FOAL, VariComp, DSAL, NEMARA, ESCOT and MISS
*** AOSD 2012 *** March 25-30, 2012 Hasso-Plattner-Institut Potsdam, Germany http://aosd.net/2012/ Call for Papers -- AOSD 2012 WORKSHOPS Six workshops on aspect orientation and modularity will be held in conjunction with MODULARITY: aosd.2012. Workshops are scheduled to be held on March, Monday 26th and Tuesday 27th 2012. FOAL: Foundations Of Aspect-Oriented Languages Submissions: December 23rd, 2011 Notification: January 13th, 2012 Camera ready: January 23rd, 2012 Workshop: March 26th, 2012 http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/FOAL/index-2012.shtml VariComp'12: Variability and Composition Submissions: January 05th, 2012 Notification: January 13th, 2012 Camera ready: January 23rd, 2012 Workshop: March 26th, 2012 http://www.aosd.net/workshops/varicomp/2012/ DSAL: Workshop on Domain-Specific Aspect Languages Submissions: December 30th, 2011 Notification: January 13th, 2012 Camera ready: January 23rd, 2012 Workshop: March 26th, 2012 http://www.dsal.cl/2012 NEMARA: Next Generation Modularity Approaches for Requirements and Architecture Submissions: January 06th, 2012 Notification: January 13th, 2012 Camera ready: January 25th, 2012 Workshop: March 27th, 2012 https://sites.google.com/site/nemara2012/ ESCOT: Empirical Evaluation of Software Composition Techniques Submissions: December 22nd, 2011 Notification: January, 17th, 2012 Camera ready: January 24rd, 2012 Workshop: March 27th, 2012 http://dawis2.icb.uni-due.de/events/escot2012 MISS: Modularity in Systems Software Submissions: December 23rd, 2011 Notification: January 13th, 2012 Camera ready: January 23rd, 2012 Workshop: March 27th, 2012 http://www.aosd.net/workshops/miss/2012/ ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] IBM eyes brain-like computing
On 10/29/2011 6:46 AM, karl ramberg wrote: On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 5:06 AM, BGB wrote: On 10/28/2011 2:27 PM, karl ramberg wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:36 PM, BGBwrote: On 10/28/2011 7:28 AM, K. K. Subramaniam wrote: On Thursday 27 Oct 2011 11:27:39 PM BGB wrote: most likely, processing power will stop increasing (WRT density and/or watts) once the respective physical limits are met (basically, it would no longer be possible to get more processing power in the same space or using less power within the confines of the laws of physics). The adoption of computing machines at large is driven primarily by three needs - power (portable), space/weight and speed. The last two are now solvable in the large but the third one is still stuck in the "dark ages". I recollect a joke by Dr An Wang (founder of Wang Labs) in keynote during the 80s that goes something like this: A man struggled to lug two heavy suitcases into a bogie in a train that was just about to depart. A fellow passenger helped him in and they start a conversation. The man turns out to be a salesman from a company that made portable computers. He showed one that fit in a pocket to his fellow passenger. "It does everything that a mainframe does and more and it costs only $100". "Amazing!" exclaimed the passenger as he held the marvel in his hands, "Where can I get one?". "You can have this piece," said the gracious gent, "as thank you gift for helping me." "Thank you very much." the passenger was thrilled beyond words as he gingerly explored the new gadget. Soon, the train reached the next station and the salesman stepped out. As the train departed, the passenger yelled at him. "Hey! you forgot your suitcases!". "Not really!" the gent shouted back. "Those are the batteries for your computer". ;-) .. Subbu yeah... this is probably a major issue at this point with "hugely multi-core" processors: if built, they would likely use lots of power and produce lots of heat. this is sort of also an issue with video cards, one gets a new/fancy nVidia card, which is then noted to have a few issues: it takes up two card slots (much of this apparently its heat-sink); it is long enough that it partially sticks into the hard-drive bays; it requires a 500W power supply; it requires 4 plugs from the power-supply; ... so, then one can joke that they have essentially installed a brick into their computer. nevermind it getting high framerates in games... however, they would have an advantage as well: people can still write their software in good old C/C++/Java/... it is likely that the existence of existing programming languages and methodologies will continue to be necessary of new computing technologies. also, likewise people will continue pushing to gradually drive-down the memory requirements, but for the most part the power use of devices has been largely dictated by what one can get from plugging a power-cord into the wall (vs either running off batteries, or OTOH, requiring one to plug in a 240V dryer/arc-welder/... style power cord). elsewhere, I designed a hypothetical ISA, partly combining ideas from ARM and x86-64, with a few "unique" ways of representing instructions (the idea being that they are aligned values of 1/2/4/8 bytes, rather than either more free-form byte-patterns or fixed-width instruction-words). or such... ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc This is also relevant regarding understanding how to make these computers work: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/We-Really-Dont-Know-How-To-Compute seems interesting, but is very much a pain trying to watch as my internet is slow and the player doesn't really seem to buffer up the video all that far when paused... but, yeah, eval and reflection are features I really like, although sadly one doesn't really have much of anything like this standard in C, meaning one has to put a lot of effort into making a lot of scripting and VM technology primarily simply to make up for the lack of things like 'eval' and 'apply'. this becomes at times a point of contention with many C++ developers, where they often believe that the "greatness of C++ for everything" more than makes up for its lack of reflection or dynamic features, and I hold that plain C has a lot of merit if-anything because it is more readily amendable to dynamic features (which can plug into the language from outside), which more or less makes up for the lack of syntax sugar in many areas... The notion I get from this presentation is that he is against C and static languages in general. It seems lambda calculus derived languages that are very dynamic and can self generate code is the way he thinks the exploration should take. I was not that far into the video at the point I posted, due mostly to slow internet, and the player not allowing the "pause, let it buffer, and come back later" strategy, generally needed for things like You
Re: [fonc] IBM eyes brain-like computing
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 5:06 AM, BGB wrote: > On 10/28/2011 2:27 PM, karl ramberg wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:36 PM, BGB wrote: >>> >>> On 10/28/2011 7:28 AM, K. K. Subramaniam wrote: On Thursday 27 Oct 2011 11:27:39 PM BGB wrote: > > most likely, processing power will stop increasing (WRT density and/or > watts) once the respective physical limits are met (basically, it would > no longer be possible to get more processing power in the same space or > using less power within the confines of the laws of physics). The adoption of computing machines at large is driven primarily by three needs - power (portable), space/weight and speed. The last two are now solvable in the large but the third one is still stuck in the "dark ages". I recollect a joke by Dr An Wang (founder of Wang Labs) in keynote during the 80s that goes something like this: A man struggled to lug two heavy suitcases into a bogie in a train that was just about to depart. A fellow passenger helped him in and they start a conversation. The man turns out to be a salesman from a company that made portable computers. He showed one that fit in a pocket to his fellow passenger. "It does everything that a mainframe does and more and it costs only $100". "Amazing!" exclaimed the passenger as he held the marvel in his hands, "Where can I get one?". "You can have this piece," said the gracious gent, "as thank you gift for helping me." "Thank you very much." the passenger was thrilled beyond words as he gingerly explored the new gadget. Soon, the train reached the next station and the salesman stepped out. As the train departed, the passenger yelled at him. "Hey! you forgot your suitcases!". "Not really!" the gent shouted back. "Those are the batteries for your computer". ;-) .. Subbu >>> >>> yeah... >>> >>> this is probably a major issue at this point with "hugely multi-core" >>> processors: >>> if built, they would likely use lots of power and produce lots of heat. >>> >>> this is sort of also an issue with video cards, one gets a new/fancy >>> nVidia >>> card, which is then noted to have a few issues: >>> it takes up two card slots (much of this apparently its heat-sink); >>> it is long enough that it partially sticks into the hard-drive bays; >>> it requires a 500W power supply; >>> it requires 4 plugs from the power-supply; >>> ... >>> >>> so, then one can joke that they have essentially installed a brick into >>> their computer. >>> >>> nevermind it getting high framerates in games... >>> >>> >>> however, they would have an advantage as well: >>> people can still write their software in good old C/C++/Java/... >>> >>> it is likely that the existence of existing programming languages and >>> methodologies will continue to be necessary of new computing >>> technologies. >>> >>> >>> also, likewise people will continue pushing to gradually drive-down the >>> memory requirements, but for the most part the power use of devices has >>> been >>> largely dictated by what one can get from plugging a power-cord into the >>> wall (vs either running off batteries, or OTOH, requiring one to plug in >>> a >>> 240V dryer/arc-welder/... style power cord). >>> >>> >>> elsewhere, I designed a hypothetical ISA, partly combining ideas from ARM >>> and x86-64, with a few "unique" ways of representing instructions (the >>> idea >>> being that they are aligned values of 1/2/4/8 bytes, rather than either >>> more >>> free-form byte-patterns or fixed-width instruction-words). >>> >>> or such... >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> fonc mailing list >>> fonc@vpri.org >>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >>> >> This is also relevant regarding understanding how to make these computers >> work: >> >> http://www.infoq.com/presentations/We-Really-Dont-Know-How-To-Compute > > seems interesting, but is very much a pain trying to watch as my internet is > slow and the player doesn't really seem to buffer up the video all that far > when paused... > > > but, yeah, eval and reflection are features I really like, although sadly > one doesn't really have much of anything like this standard in C, meaning > one has to put a lot of effort into making a lot of scripting and VM > technology primarily simply to make up for the lack of things like 'eval' > and 'apply'. > > > this becomes at times a point of contention with many C++ developers, where > they often believe that the "greatness of C++ for everything" more than > makes up for its lack of reflection or dynamic features, and I hold that > plain C has a lot of merit if-anything because it is more readily amendable > to dynamic features (which can plug into the language from outside), which > more or less makes up for the lack of syntax sugar in many areas... The notion I get
