Slashdot Mirror
Great Computer Science Papers?
slevin writes "Recently I listened to a talk by Alan Kay who mentioned that many 'new' software ideas had already been discovered decades earlier by computer scientists - but 'nobody reads these great papers anymore.' Over the years I have had the opportunity to read some really great and thought-provoking academic papers in Computer Science and would like to read more, but there are just too many to sort through. I'm wondering what great or seminal papers others have encountered. Since Google has no answers, perhaps we can come up with a list for the rest of the world?"
For "great and seminal" it's hard to beat Alan Turing's 1950 (!) paper on AI.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Often, when you're new to a given domain, there exists a book (on citeseer too...) that covers the domain and express, often better than the original authors, the main ideas.a nnonday/pape r.html
Then, you can use citeseer to see what's new and what's the fashion in the domain.
Anyway, one of the best papers (and oldest) I read give birth to a whole community:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/sh
I wonder how many IT gurus are members of ACM or IEEE Computer Society? The % of /. members who are in ACM must be very small because ACM only has 75,000 members in total.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
"The UNIX Time-Sharing System," by Dennis Ritchie & Ken Thompson, is one of the best-written papers ever. The elegance of thought and economy of description set a standard we should all aspire to.t ml
t ml
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/cacm.h
I list several more classics on my "Software Engineering Reading List" page at
http://www.multicians.org/thvv/swe-readings.h
What about the work of Edsger Dijkstra? His seminal work on 'The GOTO statement considered harmful', the Shortest Path Algorithm, and the dining philosophers.
The truth is rarely pure and never simple. Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
If nobody reads those "great old papers" any more, there's probably a reason. Sometimes the ideas have been superceeded; sometimes they weren't any good to begin with; often the papers are simply really hard to understand. The fact that people seriously suggest reading "great papers" reflects on the immaturity of the field; in a field like mathematics, hardly anyone ever reads the original papers (even for work done in the 20th century), instead opting to read someone else's simplification/clarification of the ideas.
We speak of the TAoCP as "the bible", but I'm not sure if there are any "new" ideas there; rather, the value of TAoCP is as a compilation and exposition of all the best ideas other people have produced.
Learn about great algorithms; don't worry about reading great papers.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I've taught computer science. Specifically Software Engineering where there is about a 1" thick stack of around 15 papers that get the whole idea. Wonderful works like "Goto Considered Harmful" (Communications of the ACM, 11, p147-148, 1968) come to mind. But I don't think there's much hope the typical /.er will take the time and effort to read them better yet think about them.
In the last couple of weeks /. as a culture came up as a lunch conversation between my co-workers and I. We came to the conclusion that the wild herd doesn't pay for stuff (Kazaa, Morphious, etc), is ADD (how many times have you read a posting where the poster hadn't read the link?) and generally thinks that education is mostly worthless (the bi-annual do I need a degree grudge match). Given these behaviors, why go through the effort of making a list?
If I were working this space (putting my teaching hat back on) I'd cover:
Computer Architecture (where all things come from)
Theory of Computing including O() [& friends], analysis of algs, Turing, etc.
Software Engineering
Software Testing
Graphics
Databases
Numerical Methods
Simulation (& Statistics)
and
Systems Analysis (where apparently all books currently suck)
I think that would be the place to start and there would be more than 10 or 20 of them.
-- Multics
McCarthy's paper on Lisp: Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine (Part I).
For a refreshing analysis of the paper by Lisp guru Paul Graham (the same guy who proposed the idea of Bayesian anti-spam filtering), see The Roots of Lisp.
Join the NFSNET. Our prime goal is making little numbers out of big ones. http://www.nfsnet.org/
You betcha. There has been a lot of research over the past 50 years, and much of it ignored - especially research that isn't in English.
A lot of old research is interesting in terms of Patent law. A lot of this research can be used to invalidate patent cliaims - prior art. An idea published 30 years ago simply cannot be legitimately patented now.
Very recently my Dad told me about a new patent assigned to one of his competitors. But my Dad claimed that his colleauge didn't patent that very idea in the 1970s because my dad knew of prior art - my dad had heard a researcher from Germany talk about the same thing at a small conference.
Given prior art, my Dad and his colleauge didn't apply for patent back then. But 35 years later, a company patented the idea. My Dad was pretty pissed!
So Dad and I shlogged through tons of (paper) documents and LoC and other resources trying to help him remember who the speaker was and where the conference was held. After a few weeks of digging, we got a copy of the (hard to locate) conference proceedings, and now that brand new patent looks like it's toast.
Now here's the rub - the only reason why this patent was invalidated was because my dad is still in the industry - and he's well over retirement age. Everyone else my Dad works with thought the patent would toast them. Only my dad, and old researcher with a good memory, could help his company overcome the (invalid) patent. What if my dad was retired? What if he didn't attend that talk in the 1970s? Most people simply wouldn't have known where to look for the prior art. [And not every call for prior art is suitable for Slashdot.]
Old research and old researchers are good - not only for disposing of "new" patents, but for the value of the efforts and lessons learned. So much is forgotten.
Try http://citeseer.org/ Helped me out with many CS papers whilst writing up my thesis.
...but Claude E. Shannon's paper, A Mathematical Theory of Communication has changed our outlook on information and communication. The importance of this paper on modern communication cannot be stressed enough, and it is very readable. If I had 10 papers to take to a desert island, surely this one would be on my list (:
Join the NFSNET. Our prime goal is making little numbers out of big ones. http://www.nfsnet.org/
This has been reported in Slashdot a while ago, but it deserves another mention: the manuscripts of Edsger W. Dijkstra. There are more than a thousand documents written by Dijkstra in this archive, and very interesting ones too -- careful or you'll lose days browsing it like I did.
Join the NFSNET. Our prime goal is making little numbers out of big ones. http://www.nfsnet.org/
While not exactly classic papers, some of these may be regarded as classic by our grandchildren when the time comes, since they're at the forefront of computer science's research today. A good introduction to quantum computing was recently linked in a Slashdot story posting: The Centre for Quantum Computation's Tutorials. Very, very interesting reading, if a bit advanced.
Join the NFSNET. Our prime goal is making little numbers out of big ones. http://www.nfsnet.org/
This is shameless self-promotion, but you should read my book!
Technomanifestos discusses the truly thought-provoking, inspirational, seminal computer papers of the 20th century, from Turing's "On Computable Numbers" and "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", to Alan Kay's "Personal Dynamic Media" to Larry Wall's States of the Perl Onion.
The book delves into the historical, biographical, and scientific context of works such as these and follows the thread of inspiration to today's world. If you want to know where the Internet germinated, or how Marshall McLuhan and Pierre de Chardin influenced the World Wide Web (or even who McLuhan and de Chardin are!) you should pick up my book. And then read it.
Technomanifestos tracks the evolution of the MIT hacker, from the dapper Boston Brahmin Vannevar Bush to the famously unkempt Richard Stallman, and introduces the cast of lesser-known (to the non-Slashdot world) but crucially inventive individuals such as Ivan Sutherland and Seymour Papert.
Moreover, it discusses how the truly great computing ideas come from people who recognize that technology, especially information technology, has the power to transform people and society--these are (in the words of similarly great books) tools for thought and dream machines.
Or if you have no interest in helping me pay my DSL bill, you can go straight to the sources, many of which are available online.
author,
Citeseer was cited in the blurb, but a really nice service that they provide is the Computer Science Directory. There you can look for papers sorted by domain, and ranked by several criteria like "authority". The top papers are usually a good read if you are interested in a particular domain.
Does anyone know of a website where you can get access to comp sci and comp eng papers and stuff?
Try looking at arxiv.org and CiteSeer.
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
Some of the most interesting papers are actually surveys. From there will get the overview, often in a easy to read text, and pointers to the seminal papers. You also will know which are the relevant publications.
Try browsing the ACM Surveys. I've read recently "A guided tour to approximate string matching". Quite good, and starting from there, I could get a good insight of the field.
Though it has very few entries, and is no longer updated, there are at least two papers in that list that the typical Slashdotter may have heard about: Go To Statement Considered Harmful, by Dijkstra, and Reflections on Trusting Trust, by Ken Thompson.
The remaining ACM Classics of the Month are here.
Join the NFSNET. Our prime goal is making little numbers out of big ones. http://www.nfsnet.org/
I think Alan Kay would agree that not all CS papers of a worthy read are in CS..
:)
Chemistry
:)
g
Information Theory was certainly not in CS when it was orginally written in the 1940s..instead it was in Telcommunications and Mathematics
Basically the areas you shoudl be looking at are:
Logic
Philosphy
Mathematics
Physics
Bilogy
For example the concept of meta data.. ie data that has diferent menains based on context is common in all these areas and has direct applicatiosn to CS! Some of the current concepts of Semantic web are from this area and started in Language studies..:)
Rmember the old adage of the crusty old CS professor that CS is multidisplinary still applies!
Fred Grott
ShareMeTechnologies-The Mobile Future
http://www.jroller.com/page/shareme/Weblo
#11: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's tagline.
Don't Tread on OpenSource
(ideas borrowed from Thomas Kuhn and Yuri Lotman)
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Reference: Jerome H. Saltzer, and Michael D. Schroeder. The Protection of Information in Computer Systems. (invited tutorial paper) Proceedings of the IEEE 63, 9 (September 1975) pages 1278-1308. Reprinted in David D. Clark and David D. Redell, editors. Protection of Information in Computer Systems. IEEE 1975 CompCon tutorial. IEEE # 75CH1050-4. Also reprinted in Rein Turn, editor. Advances in Computer System Security. ArTech House, Dedham, MA, 1981, pages 105-135. ISBN 0-89006-096-7 Also reprinted in Marvin S. Levin, Steven B. Lipner, and Paul A. Karger. Protecting Data & Information: A Workshop in Computer & Data Security. Digital Equipment Corporation, 1982. This paper was originally prepared off-line. In 1997, Norman Hardy kindly rendered it into World-Wide Web form. here
- Van Jacobson and Michael J. Karels Congestion Avoidance and Control. SIGCOMM, 1988
- J.H. Saltzer, D.P. Reed and D.D. Clark, End-to-end Arguments in System Design, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, Nov 1984, p. 277-288
- Jeffrey C. Mogul The Case for Persistent-Connection HTTP. In Proceedings of ACM Sigcomm '95, pp. 299-313, Cambridge, MA, August 1995
Maybe someone else will have better luck tracking down a link to Mogul's paper.Donald Knuth has written a lot of interesting papers, but his paper on TeXs line-breaking algoritm
and as far as I know, the algoritm is still state of the art and is used only by TeX, InDesign and an addition to QuarkXPress.
-- Rolf Lindgren, cand.psychol
If you want a mind bender, there is always On the Duality of Operating System Structures. But if you want something a little more practical, I'd recommend Eliminating Receive Livelock in an Interrupt-Driven Kernel or The End to End Argument in System Design.
You have to register to get most papers from ACM (the Association for Computing Machinery who published "GOTO considered harmful"). However, the full text can be found free in their classics series.
Everybody should read this paper, then read Linus Torvalds et. al. discussing the matter on kernaltrap.org
foo mane padme hum
As a PhD student, I often have to look for papers in the computer science field ; and very often, CiteSeer yields better results - or, rather, different results, but with a very good cross-referencing system. You can directly jump to the other papers cited by the paper you're reading, and you can see which papers did cite it, too.
The URL :
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs
That said, I often find very interesting ideas in scientific papers, but sometimes things can't be implemented with current technology (I'm still talking about computer science domain, since that's what I know), or sometimes, the good idea in the paper is obsoleted a few years later.
For instance, I remember a scheduling algorithm to read disk blocks in a Video-On-Demand server : it was maybe very clever when it was written, when they had to feed 155 Mbps with a computer having 16 MB of RAM, but today, you have maybe 10 times more throughput, but 100 times more RAM - so you can use simpler, memory-hungry, buffering methods.
The problem is, that it's difficult (IMHO) to say "OK, this paper is theoretically interesting, but we can't implement this today, BUT we will probably be able to do it in a few (dozen) years", because you don't know what will and won't evolve (in my previous example, it was easy to predict that network bandwidth and memory size would increase, but it was maybe harder to guess that MPEG4 and DivX would allow the bitrate of a video stream to stay low...)
"On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem"" is unarguably the paper that began the field of computer science as we understand it today. Here we have the first descriptions of universal computing devices, Turing machines, which eventually led to the idea of universal stored-program digital computers. The paper even seems to describe, in what is unarguably the first ever conceptual programming language, a form of continuation passing style in the form of the "skeleton tables" Turing used to abbreviate his Turing machine designs. It's also relatively easy reading compared to many other scientific papers I've seen.
Along with this we might also include Alonzo Church's 1941 paper "The Calculi of Lambda Abstraction" (which sadly does not appear to be anywhere online), where the lambda calculus, the basis for all functional programming languages, is first described.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
just because I'm bored "why not \." simple the backward slash is only used by the backward company microsoft. All true operating systems use the forward slash / it is easier to get to on the keyboard and makes life easier as it is now standard. now to see if anyone bites
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Check out the Networked Computer Science Technical Reference Library.
- Hubert
I hate to burst your bubble after all the effort that you went through, but ... From your description, your Dad's company is nowhere near out of the woods yet.
In order to invalidate a patent, the prior art must no only describe an invention, but also be "enabling" in it's description (either standing alone or in combination with other prior art). Most conference proceeding consist of a title and/or abstract, neither of which normally contains sufficient information to teach how to make and use the invention (i.e., is "enabling"). A mere mention of the concept does not make for invalidating prior art. In almost every case such as this you also need additional prior art and testimony of the speaker at the conference (and possibly those attending).
And, if you are relying on testimony, the (enabled) invention must be proven to have been "known or used by others" (35 USC 102(a)), or "on sale or in public use" (35 USC 102(b)) ... "in this country" . 35 USC 102. Unfortunately, testimony corroborating oral disclosure in a foreign country doesn't do the trick.
Since nobody who seems to have actually read any computer science papers has posted, here are two that immediately come to my mind.
:)
Vannevar Bush. As We May Think. Atlantic Monthly, July, 1945.
This paper put forth the very first ideas about how people can mechanically search for information. While we don't have desks with levers on them, we do have Google.
Tim Berners Lee. Information Management: A Proposal. 1989.
This paper is where Tim Berners Lee proposes what we now know as the world wide web. It's an interesting read if you'd like to see what the original intent of the web was so that you can compare it to what we have today.
A place to look for good old computer science papers is in older issues of Communications of the ACM. There are lots of articles in plain English that you may find of interest. If you are a university student, your school may have a subscription to the ACM Digital Library. If they do, you can read all the issues back to 1958.
Also, you can find a lot of interesting CS publications at Citeseer. They have a page with the top 200 most accessed papers of all times. When I skimmed through it, I saw quite a few titles that may be of interest.
(those who feel left out should immediately report to me or the nearest AC; they will be duly noted in the next edition of this post)
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Shannon's 1948 paper, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication", the seminal work on information theory and coding.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
I'm learning to read classical Greek so that I may read Euripides.
An admirable exercise.
Journalist I.F. Stone, rather late in life, taught himself ancient Greek, in order to read the actual source documents relating to the trial and execution of Socrates.
No translation would suffice: Stone felt that only by reading the original text for himself could he arrive at the insight he desired.
-kgj
-kgj
MIT Open Courseware These are not whitepapers and the like. Rather, they are mostly lecture notes from the professors who teach the classes there - Enjoy!
p.s. - Check out the link in my earlier post
This is the paper by Diffie and Hellman that originated public-key cryptography. This paper explained for the first time (in an unclassified place) how two parties could communicate privately over an open channel without previously agreeing on a secret key. Every time your browser says, "Setting up a secure connection..." when you order from Amazon or check your bank account, you're witnessing the impact of this work.
You touch on the topic of information overload. There is so much new information now, not to mention the amount being generated every day, that people don't have a good grasp of them. Some social scientist once remarked how most "new" works are not really original. A lot of papers, theses, books, articles, magazines, etc are published every year, yet many of them are repeating stuff and inadvertently cover stuff that were already done. For instance, the number of unique scientific papers being published now is a lower percentage than 100 years ago, but the number of papers published now is several magnitudes larger.
Ironically, if people actually spent time using old stuff, it wouldn't necessarily be better. For instance, people will probably spend more time searching for existing stuff than generating ideas.
Perhaps the decline of science will be precipitated by this...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
Well, maybe I just wanted to whore my favourite paper.
xxx
I'll put my vote in for "Impossibility of Distributed Consensus With One Faulty Process", by Fischer, Lynch, and Paterson. This paper is better known in theoretical circles as the the FLP result. Quite a cool little paper. Consensus is a problem in which processes are expected to come to an agreement about some value based on the values that were initially proposed by the participating processes. Basically, at the start of any consensus algorithm, each process proposes some value $v \in S$ (where S is some predefined set of values), and when a process decides a value, no process can decide a different value and moreover it must be a value that was initially proposed by some process. There's also a liveness condition: processes must eventually make a decision. What FLP proved was that even when $S = \{0,1\}$ (i.e., they examined the binary consensus problem), and there was only 1 faulty process (i.e., one process may "crash" during the execution of the consensus algorithm), then in a purely asynchronous system, the consensus problem cannot be solved. For example, you can have 10^9 processes, and exactly 1 of those processes could be faulty, and there is absolutely no way in hell that those other 10^9-1 processes can reach any sort of an agreement. Cool, eh?
All our basic problems are there in [classical Athens] miniature. -- I.F. Stone
... but in terms of our humanity, we are fundamentally the same as our ancestors.
Exactly. The soul of man has not changed since the classical world.
Good, evil, right and wrong, kindness and cruelty, peace and war -- details may change, interpretations may change, certainly the technologies change
There is a terrible temptation -- especially in America, my home country, whose founders saw themselves as the spiritual successors to the democratic principles of classical Athens -- to view one's own country as "better" than the rest of the world. Indeed, there is a terrible temptation to view oneself as "better" than the rest of mankind. But a reading of history says otherwise. We are neither better nor worse than our ancestors: we are surprisingly like them.
-kgj
-kgj
In CS, conference proceedings generally include full texts of the papers. Often conference papers will be a general description of an idea and how it was implemented in a system, with references that include a technical report or someone's thesis with more details about the ideas and implementation. I'm not disagreeing that to prove prior art more may be required than old papers.
In the section titled GENERIC STRUCTURE, HIERARCHIES , Sutherland describes how he restructured SKETCHPAD in what we would immediately recognize as an OO manner:
Later in the section DEMONSTRATIVE LANGUAGE we see what we might call today the association of classes with methods as Sutherland notes:
The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure by Dr. Ian Foster of Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Chicago, and Dr. Carl Kesselman of the Information Sciences Institute and the University of Southern California.
Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco; 1999.
So what is the basic idea? That computers should not be constrained to the physical desktop, but should become an everyday and seamless part of our lives. And in this paper, Weiser and his team at Xerox PARC introduced location-based computing; devices of all form factors, from small PDAs to tablet PCs to electronic whiteboards; sensors for integrating the physical and virtual worlds; wireless networking to make it all connected no matter where you were (in their office building anyway). Weiser's vision is so influential, that there are now (literally) thousands of researchers working on what he called ubiquitous computing, as well as several research conferences devoted to this theme, not to mention the direction that the commercial world has already taken with PDAs, WiFi, sensor networks, and so on.
Lamport, Leslie. "Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System", pps. 558-565, CACM, Vol. 21, No. 7, July, 1978
Parnas, David. "On the Criteria To Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules", pps. 1053-1058, CACM, Vol. 15, No. 12, December, 1972
Hester, S.D, Parnas, D.L., and Utter, D.F. "Using Documentation as a Software Design Medium", pps. 1942-1977, The Bell System Technical Journal, October, 1981
Parnas, David L. and Clements, Paul C. "A Rational Design Process: How and Why to Fake It", Presented at the Tapsoft Joint Conference on Theory and Practice of Software Development, Berlin, March, 1985
And one more(I know this guy, and I had to read this for a class, so I figured I'd give him some props..) Wheeler, Tom. Software System Development Through The Use of Formal Documentation, Ch. 2 (System Documentation), PhD. Thesis, Steven's Institute of Technology 1988
A recent short job assignment at HP let me run amok through the online libraries of both IEEE and ACM. It was interesting to see published articles from 5-10 years ago that directly covered topics that were the hot issues in the office today. Looking at the issues that were hot topics in the last few companies over the past 2 years, I saw the same pattern of scholarly articles being about 5-10 years ahead of the industry.
While working in medium to larger companies, I would find the number of people who did not even understand simple concepts of Computer Science frightening.
I am curious as to how much effort is wasted reinventing the wheel. I know a lot, because as a programmer on death march projects, I rarely have the hours to devote to finding how other people solved the same problem 5-30 years ago. That pointy haired boss breathing down my back thinks that any time not spent slaving over a hot keyboard is a waste of time. As the old saying: it is hard to remember the job is to drain the swamp when you are up to your armpits wrestling with gators. No amount of showing that spending a few hours sharpening the saw each week could save far more time that what appeared to be wasted. One past job allowed some time to be billed to research each week until some phb wandered by to bitch about it. It was the appearance of goofing off reading that made the boss look worse than the schedule slipping. And appearances appear to be more important in today's economy than actual results.
How about the Steele and Sussman "Lambda the Ultimate" MIT AI Lab tech reports. Very influential. Sadly, I don't know if anyone's put them on the web. And, of course, there's the repository of Dijkstra's stuff....
It talks about software quality and testing -- which seem very applicable, if not entirely in sync with, recent ideas about agile programming, test-driven-development, etc.
I think you mean "The Calculi of Lambda Conversion" , or are they two different things?
For instance, he has the very first mouse, a word processor with cut, copy, paste, embedded graphics (remember how cool OLE seemed to be?), hyper-linking (remember how cool hypercard seemed to be?), embedded levels of text (kind of like looking at a hyper-linked table of contents in a book), multi-handed interface, a piece of groupware that allows him and a distant co-worker to work together in the same application (think collaborative real-time modification of the same document -- something we still don't really have), telepointers (graphical representation of other people's mouse pointers), embedded video (think webcam), and the list goes on and on and on.
When you think about the fact that this was done in the 1960's, you really begin to wonder, "what the hell have we been doing since then!?"
http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/rob/
:
be sure to catch "Systems Software Research is Irrelevant"
You will probably see a lot worse links than
Bell Labs - formerly known as heaven.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I know a lot of people are going to suggest the Turing papers, and other more impact-of-computation-on-society type papers. Of course, they might be better off mentioning Seymour Papert, but I'd rather focus on some papers a little more concrete.
One of the problems with looking for original papers on CS is that the earliest were intensively focused on mathematical notation-- from the 1930's! For example, famous mathematician Church is accreddited with the definition of the lambda calculus denoting functions, which classes about programming languages use heavily. During such a class, our professor introduced us to a few papers, "Definitional Interpreters for Higher-Order Programming Languages" by John Reynolds. The paper was originally published in 1972, so I'm not sure how he got ahold of it. But it's a great survey of the topic. If you're really interested in a specific topic, the easiest way, I find, to find foundational papers is to find a textbook on the topic with a thick bibliography. Then just try to trace out the citation geneology to an appropriate root. Eventually you'll work your way from something like "Designing autonomous robots to work independently in cellular networks" to something like "cooperative robotics." In this quest, Cite Seer can be a great tool. But it makes a poor starting place, as you mentioned.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Alan Borning proposed a neato object system where relationships among objects (it's prototype based) was handled by "inheritance constraints," a sort of super-flexible inheritance cum delegation scheme. See this page for Classes versus Prototypes in Object-Oriented Languages.
In the great CONS chain of life, you can either be the CAR or be in the CDR.
- Codd: "A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks"
- Dijkstra: "Go To Statement Considered Harmful"
- Dijkstra: "Appendix of The Structure of the "THE"-Multiprogramming System"
- Hoare: "Monitors: An Operating System Structuring Concept"
- Metcalfe & Boggs: "Ethernet: Distributed Packet Switching for Local Computer Networks"
- Parnas: "On the Criteria to be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules"
- Thompson: "Reflections on Trusting Trust"
- Wirth: "Program Development by Stepwise Refinement"
Of course, the ACM Digital Library contains the "[f]ull text of every article ever published by ACM", but only for paying subscribers ($198/year). An organization that considers itself to be "a major force in advancing the skills of information technology professionals and students worldwide" should be trying to get information into circulation, not trying to squeeze publications fees out of the practioners of the field.Sounds like the sort of problem that a system like CanonicalTomes would be good for. Canonical tomes is for books. Anyone up for making a similar site for "canonical papers"?
Prof. Manindra Agarwal and two of his students, Nitin Saxena and Neeraj Kayal (both BTech from CSE/IITK who have just joined as Ph.D. students), have discovered a polynomial time deterministic algorithm to test if an input number is prime or not. Lots of people over (literally!) centuries have been looking for a polynomial time test for primality, and this result is a major breakthrough, likened by some to the P-time solution to Linear Programming announced in the 70s.
You may want to add this one to your list....
Primes is in P
Here is a neat site that I found (yep, using Google):
Great Papers in Computer Science:
http://bit.csc.lsu.edu/~chen/GreatPapers.html
I kept trying to put the TOC from the site in this comment, but Slashdot kept saying that the line length was too short. Since it was just plain text, I do not understand what was going on with that. So sorry, but the link really is worth checking out. Good reading!
http://john.regehr.org/reading_list/
"Format C:" by B. Gates