p****g
发帖数: 7 | 1 parallel architecture and compiler techniques
这个会议怎样？比isca, asplos, micro啥的差多少？ |
p****g
发帖数: 7 | 2 难道没有人知道这个会议吗？PACT应该还挺有名的吧。
【在 p****g 的大作中提到】
: parallel architecture and compiler techniques
: 这个会议怎样？比isca, asplos, micro啥的差多少？
|
p******m
发帖数: 23 | 3 It is a good conference but not the top. In Architecture/Compiler the top of
the top is ASPLOS, once every two years (even numbered years only). If you are
a pure architecture guy, then ISCA is better then MICRO and both of them is
better than PACT. If you are from compiler field, PLDI is better than CGO.
PACT in arch should be in rank with CGO in compiler. I would say roughly --
1 ASPLOS paper = 2 PLDI/ISCA/MICRO =2.5 HPCA = 3 PACT/CGO/SPAA/ICS/
No bricks pls -- just a personal prejudice -- hah
【在 p****g 的大作中提到】
: 难道没有人知道这个会议吗？PACT应该还挺有名的吧。
|
p****g
发帖数: 7 | 4
哇！ asplos这么牛啊。我一直以为
PLDI/ISCA > micro/hpc/cgo/asplos/pact> SPAA/ics
【在 p******m 的大作中提到】
: It is a good conference but not the top. In Architecture/Compiler the top of
: the top is ASPLOS, once every two years (even numbered years only). If you are
: a pure architecture guy, then ISCA is better then MICRO and both of them is
: better than PACT. If you are from compiler field, PLDI is better than CGO.
: PACT in arch should be in rank with CGO in compiler. I would say roughly --
: 1 ASPLOS paper = 2 PLDI/ISCA/MICRO =2.5 HPCA = 3 PACT/CGO/SPAA/ICS/
: No bricks pls -- just a personal prejudice -- hah
|
o***c
发帖数: 6 | 5 PLDI and ISCA have much longer history than ASPLOS. CGO, PACT and HPCA are
relatively
new conferences (less than 15 years). ASPLOS also has a shorter history.
ASPLOS
is clearly overrated if you say "1 ASPLOS = 2 PLDI/ISCA/MICRO". Citation rate
is a very
tricky criteria. You have to take into account things such as history length
of a conference,
self-citation including citation from author's students, citation from the
same conference
and citation from other related conferences and etc. Today, m
【在 p****g 的大作中提到】
:
: 哇！ asplos这么牛啊。我一直以为
: PLDI/ISCA > micro/hpc/cgo/asplos/pact> SPAA/ics
|
g***i
发帖数: 50 | 6
rate
It's only YOUR opinion! I should say these are two very different types of
conferences, one focus on hacking techniques (Defcon and Phrack ), another
focus on academic security research (CCS, IEEE S&P).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't mislead, man! You'd better know the fact then say this! For the case of
IEEE S&P, there are about 200 attendee. CCS may have more because it accepts
more paper and has two tracks now.
about
top
you
CGO.
【在 o***c 的大作中提到】
: PLDI and ISCA have much longer history than ASPLOS. CGO, PACT and HPCA are
: relatively
: new conferences (less than 15 years). ASPLOS also has a shorter history.
: ASPLOS
: is clearly overrated if you say "1 ASPLOS = 2 PLDI/ISCA/MICRO". Citation rate
: is a very
: tricky criteria. You have to take into account things such as history length
: of a conference,
: self-citation including citation from author's students, citation from the
: same conference
|
p******m
发帖数: 23 | 7 Yes, ASPLOS has a shorter history than PLDI/ISCA. My opinion was purely based
on the quality and the amount of work required from a project to report a
paper. PLDI/ISCA is clearly on the losing side: they tend to report much
smaller scale, specific techniques. Attending rate should be a factor but
ASPLOS would win easily: it accepts fewer papers, has usually a larger crowd
than either PLDI/ISCA which accept more. I don't know the citation rate but
you may be right: ASPLOS would win citation rate
【在 o***c 的大作中提到】
: PLDI and ISCA have much longer history than ASPLOS. CGO, PACT and HPCA are
: relatively
: new conferences (less than 15 years). ASPLOS also has a shorter history.
: ASPLOS
: is clearly overrated if you say "1 ASPLOS = 2 PLDI/ISCA/MICRO". Citation rate
: is a very
: tricky criteria. You have to take into account things such as history length
: of a conference,
: self-citation including citation from author's students, citation from the
: same conference
|
h****n
发帖数: 45 | 8 it's your personal opinion. a little different from this though.
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/impact.html
based
length
example,
or
world
them
【在 p******m 的大作中提到】
: Yes, ASPLOS has a shorter history than PLDI/ISCA. My opinion was purely based
: on the quality and the amount of work required from a project to report a
: paper. PLDI/ISCA is clearly on the losing side: they tend to report much
: smaller scale, specific techniques. Attending rate should be a factor but
: ASPLOS would win easily: it accepts fewer papers, has usually a larger crowd
: than either PLDI/ISCA which accept more. I don't know the citation rate but
: you may be right: ASPLOS would win citation rate
|
T**********n
发帖数: 480 | 9 citeseer这个吧会议期刊混一起排有点没道理啊
【在 h****n 的大作中提到】
: it's your personal opinion. a little different from this though.
: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/impact.html
:
: based
: length
: example,
: or
: world
: them
|
p****g
发帖数: 7 | 10 parallel architecture and compiler techniques
这个会议怎样？比isca, asplos, micro啥的差多少？ |
|
|
p****g
发帖数: 7 | 11 难道没有人知道这个会议吗？PACT应该还挺有名的吧。
【在 p****g 的大作中提到】
: parallel architecture and compiler techniques
: 这个会议怎样？比isca, asplos, micro啥的差多少？
|
p******m
发帖数: 23 | 12 It is a good conference but not the top. In Architecture/Compiler the top of
the top is ASPLOS, once every two years (even numbered years only). If you are
a pure architecture guy, then ISCA is better then MICRO and both of them is
better than PACT. If you are from compiler field, PLDI is better than CGO.
PACT in arch should be in rank with CGO in compiler. I would say roughly --
1 ASPLOS paper = 2 PLDI/ISCA/MICRO =2.5 HPCA = 3 PACT/CGO/SPAA/ICS/
No bricks pls -- just a personal prejudice -- haha--
【在 p****g 的大作中提到】
: 难道没有人知道这个会议吗？PACT应该还挺有名的吧。
|
p****g
发帖数: 7 | 13
哇！ asplos这么牛啊。我一直以为
PLDI/ISCA > micro/hpc/cgo/asplos/pact> SPAA/ics
【在 p******m 的大作中提到】
: It is a good conference but not the top. In Architecture/Compiler the top of
: the top is ASPLOS, once every two years (even numbered years only). If you are
: a pure architecture guy, then ISCA is better then MICRO and both of them is
: better than PACT. If you are from compiler field, PLDI is better than CGO.
: PACT in arch should be in rank with CGO in compiler. I would say roughly --
: 1 ASPLOS paper = 2 PLDI/ISCA/MICRO =2.5 HPCA = 3 PACT/CGO/SPAA/ICS/
: No bricks pls -- just a personal prejudice -- haha--
|
o***c
发帖数: 6 | 14 PLDI and ISCA have much longer history than ASPLOS. CGO, PACT and HPCA are
relatively
new conferences (less than 15 years). ASPLOS also has a shorter history.
ASPLOS
is clearly overrated if you say "1 ASPLOS = 2 PLDI/ISCA/MICRO". Citation rate
is a very
tricky criteria. You have to take into account things such as history length
of a conference,
self-citation including citation from author's students, citation from the
same conference
and citation from other related conferences and etc. Today, many CS
conferences become such
closed circles that it is almost irrelevant to the real world. For example,
GDC has far
more impact on the industry than Siggraph. But you cannot get faculty job or
tenure by publishing
in GDC. Defcon and Phrack in my opinion are more important to the real world
security
practice than conferences such as CCS or IEEE S&P. Look at how many people
attending those
so called top conferences, many cases 30-50. Excluding the authors, there
maybe only a dozen
outside people care about them. To me, it is almost a joke to even talk about
"impact" of those
"nobody" care conferences.
of
are
is
【在 p****g 的大作中提到】
:
: 哇！ asplos这么牛啊。我一直以为
: PLDI/ISCA > micro/hpc/cgo/asplos/pact> SPAA/ics
|
g***i
发帖数: 50 | 15
rate
It's only YOUR opinion! I should say these are two very different types of
conferences, one focus on hacking techniques (Defcon and Phrack ), another
focus on academic security research (CCS, IEEE S&P).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't mislead, man! You'd better know the fact then say this! For the case of
IEEE S&P, there are about 200 attendee. CCS may have more because it accepts
more paper and has two tracks now.
about
top
you
CGO.
【在 o***c 的大作中提到】
: PLDI and ISCA have much longer history than ASPLOS. CGO, PACT and HPCA are
: relatively
: new conferences (less than 15 years). ASPLOS also has a shorter history.
: ASPLOS
: is clearly overrated if you say "1 ASPLOS = 2 PLDI/ISCA/MICRO". Citation rate
: is a very
: tricky criteria. You have to take into account things such as history length
: of a conference,
: self-citation including citation from author's students, citation from the
: same conference
|
p******m
发帖数: 23 | 16 Yes, ASPLOS has a shorter history than PLDI/ISCA. My opinion was purely based
on the quality and the amount of work required from a project to report a
paper. PLDI/ISCA is clearly on the losing side: they tend to report much
smaller scale, specific techniques. Attending rate should be a factor but
ASPLOS would win easily: it accepts fewer papers, has usually a larger crowd
than either PLDI/ISCA which accept more. I don't know the citation rate but
you may be right: ASPLOS would win citation rate too, and it also serves
better wine .. (hoho) .. to be less offensive I correct myself:
ASPLOS > PLDI/ISCA > MICRO > HPCA > PACT/CGO > ICS/SPAA
rate
about
top
you
CGO.
【在 o***c 的大作中提到】
: PLDI and ISCA have much longer history than ASPLOS. CGO, PACT and HPCA are
: relatively
: new conferences (less than 15 years). ASPLOS also has a shorter history.
: ASPLOS
: is clearly overrated if you say "1 ASPLOS = 2 PLDI/ISCA/MICRO". Citation rate
: is a very
: tricky criteria. You have to take into account things such as history length
: of a conference,
: self-citation including citation from author's students, citation from the
: same conference
|
h****n
发帖数: 45 | 17 it's your personal opinion. a little different from this though.
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/impact.html
based
length
example,
or
world
them
【在 p******m 的大作中提到】
: Yes, ASPLOS has a shorter history than PLDI/ISCA. My opinion was purely based
: on the quality and the amount of work required from a project to report a
: paper. PLDI/ISCA is clearly on the losing side: they tend to report much
: smaller scale, specific techniques. Attending rate should be a factor but
: ASPLOS would win easily: it accepts fewer papers, has usually a larger crowd
: than either PLDI/ISCA which accept more. I don't know the citation rate but
: you may be right: ASPLOS would win citation rate too, and it also serves
: better wine .. (hoho) .. to be less offensive I correct myself:
: ASPLOS > PLDI/ISCA > MICRO > HPCA > PACT/CGO > ICS/SPAA
:
|
T**********n
发帖数: 480 | 18 citeseer这个吧会议期刊混一起排有点没道理啊
【在 h****n 的大作中提到】
: it's your personal opinion. a little different from this though.
: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/impact.html
:
: based
: length
: example,
: or
: world
: them
|
m*****P
发帖数: 1331 | 19 mark
【在 p****g 的大作中提到】
: parallel architecture and compiler techniques
: 这个会议怎样？比isca, asplos, micro啥的差多少？
|
g******6
发帖数: 942 | 20 1 ASPLOS = 2 PLDI/ISCA/MICRO 是扯淡。ASPLOS上的水文多了去了。ASPLOS，ISCA
几乎一样。在CA里面ISCA还略高，因为是CA的flagship conference.
To LZ: PACT is slightly lower than ISCA, HPCA, etc but still a very good
conference.
of
are
is
-
【在 p******m 的大作中提到】
: It is a good conference but not the top. In Architecture/Compiler the top of
: the top is ASPLOS, once every two years (even numbered years only). If you are
: a pure architecture guy, then ISCA is better then MICRO and both of them is
: better than PACT. If you are from compiler field, PLDI is better than CGO.
: PACT in arch should be in rank with CGO in compiler. I would say roughly --
: 1 ASPLOS paper = 2 PLDI/ISCA/MICRO =2.5 HPCA = 3 PACT/CGO/SPAA/ICS/
: No bricks pls -- just a personal prejudice -- haha--
|
g******6
发帖数: 942 | 21 另外, ASPLOS的PC太杂，所以收的paper各方向都有，质量有些参差不齐，综合其实还
不如ISCA。
【在 g******6 的大作中提到】
: 1 ASPLOS = 2 PLDI/ISCA/MICRO 是扯淡。ASPLOS上的水文多了去了。ASPLOS，ISCA
: 几乎一样。在CA里面ISCA还略高，因为是CA的flagship conference.
: To LZ: PACT is slightly lower than ISCA, HPCA, etc but still a very good
: conference.
:
: of
: are
: is
: -
|
