Slashdot Mirror
Vint Cerf on Why Programmers Don't Join the ACM
jfruh writes "The Association for Computing Machinery is a storied professional group for computer programmers, but its membership hasn't grown in recent years to keep pace with the industry. Vint Cerf, who recently concluded his term as ACM president, asked developers what was keeping them from signing up. Their answers: paywalled content, lack of information relevant to non-academics, and code that wasn't freely available."
Ain't no money to be made by joining the ACM. People like money.
I can get every thing I need from Google. Why would I pay money to join the ACM? A 25 year old bottle of Scotch is a much better value.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
I think the subject said it all.
I've been a member for some time but let it lapse a few years ago because it got to the point that the benefits didn't justify the expense. Or rather, the benefits hadn't justified the expense for some time, I finally got fed up hoping that might change. I finally noticed I wasn't getting my money's worth and pulled the plug on it. Much of ACM seems designed to extract maximum income from its membership. That gravy train is over, as far as I'm concerned.
While you're taking CS courses in a university, ACM membership is great! But in the corporate world there's often not a good reason to join.
I was president of my university's ACM chapter at one point, but I've let my membership lapse. The value proposition just isn't worth it to me at the moment.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
I haven't heard about ACM since I left school and I wasn't interested then.. so why join now?
Did the blurb just say the ACM was for programmers? The only people I know who give the slightest of shits about ACM are students and professors. For computer programmers my ass.
---
ACM is a great resource and I regularly borrow journals from friends.
My issues are simple.
1) I'm self educated. ACM discriminates against people like me. It doesn't matter that I have 20 years experience in protocol and codec design or that I've designed algorithms which they have published articles analyzing.
2) price. ACM is too expensive for individuals and programmers who are actual scientists and actual engineers as opposed to Python coding web site developers have a hard enough time getting bosses to pay for RAM upgrades. Things like "club memberships" are generally out of the question.
3) Too many journals to choose from and each one costs more. Professional programmers probably want 3-5 different journals. I haven't checked in a while, but I would want the journals on compilers, machine vision, signal processing and probably AI (if those are all categories) but I wouldn't want to pay for all 3. A downloadable printable version of the actual journals or at least an ebook would be welcome. Last I checked, they only offered article by article.
Finally, I never see ACM articles linked from Google. You'd imagine searches for things like "reduction of inter block artifacts in discrete wavelet transforms" should nail 5 ACM articles on the first page. Instead, I see mailing lists.
I joined for life a few months ago, both ACM and their Digital Library. I've been an annual member for many years. Decided to go all in. Their digital library is worth it when seeking obscure research papers.
Because of Internet.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
You want people to pay for information?
You can't stop the signal Mal.
Ben Gauzy
There is nothing in there that low grade code monkeys, which is the vast majority of the software industry, need to know. I mean, how much skills do you have to have to run a mom and pop web store, publish the jillionth fart app, or maintain a payroll system?
Of course, these code monkeys get swamped whenever the next major technology change comes along but, hey, we can't all be good enough to work for Google or Apple, etc.
What the hell is ACM and why would it benefit me to join them?
You get to meet people and talk about fun things. ACM was good, but the free Linux club was even more enjoyable. Chemistry had the best field trips. Physics ate the most pizza. Geology drank the most alcohol.
After graduation I stayed with SPS/APS for a while because Physics Today is a good magazine. However, I miss the Linux group the most.
Turns out some recent conferences have their presentations recorded in HD video. An example is POPL. OK, so I went and downloaded a few videos on formal methods hoping to see something I cared about. I downloaded some 5 videos in one day. Next day I get an e-mail saying my ACM DL subscription has been frozen due to excessive use and I need to contact membership services to get it reopened.
In addition to this, the ACM DL terms of use still prohibit "systematically downloading" articles which according to them means downloading all articles of an issue of a journal or all the articles of a conference. This is just plain stupid.
I had a free membership as a student, not one of the resources were of any use to me, there were 'free' books but none of them were for subjects that were of interest to me. So once it came time to pay to stay on I did not.
I suspect this is probably the story for most people, nobody is signing up because there is no actual benefit to doing so, it really is that simple.
Most of these organizations and associations completely fail to understand how they would be able to create added value for their potential members. As an electronic engineer I'm supposed to be a member of IEEE. I can't think of a single reason why I would subscribe, and the people and letters of IEEE didn't make things better. On the contrary.
ACM carries a historic name, but subscriptions cannot justify buying just that. IMHO, most techie people do try it out and then have their memberships lapse.
Yes, whenever I've been googling for something and run across a paywalled ACM article on the subject I think "f*** those guys" and get my info somewhere else
Why not join the catholic church and the muslim brotherhood too? I do not see any value at all joining all of these organisations, much less paying for the privilege.
"We're all bro-grammers that want free stuff."
The ACM shouldn't bother trying to attract that type.
I feel hard done by and feel sorry for myself and I don't have a job, even though I've a CS degree and I'm a competent programmer.
Clearly the jobs are for the Bill Gates wannabes (dropouts) because they're all geniuses just like him and MS never copied Apple, who never copied Xerox etc.
Then I'm from Ireland...and feel the pinch of this global recession more than others...
maintain a payroll system?
You, clearly, have not worked on a payroll system before (or at least not in Germany, which is where I'm located). A payroll system must implement a zillion laws invented by insane politician which have no clue about programming (or basic math) and can't even work-out that their "algorithms" are non-functional. It's got to the point that the government agents that should validate our system every year ask us "how did you solve this ...?" because they themselves cannot work it out.
Why does ACM still exist? what does it offer a programmer that he can't get for free?
I listed my membership on my résumé, along with the ACM logo.
This was 15 years ago and I was a contractor around Washington, DC, doing many short-term contracts.
Yes, it was effective.
In the course of interviews, the interviewer would often tell me that they had been meaning to join, or had heard of it, but not once that they were themselves a member. Just a little psychological advantage, I guess. This helped,too, because I never went to college.
That said, I got absolutely nothing from their articles or other content.
-- My Weblog.
In college, I got a lot of free pizza in at their meetings!
I agree with a lot of the comments here about how it's got declining value. I usually catch up on issues during vacation each year and it's always enjoyable to read some RMS or PHK rant. That said, it's not really worth the $100 for the digital library on top of the yearly dues. I only have it at this point because some of the old content is helpful when working on my hobby.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
...but, it's too pricy for me. With how bad the economy continues to be, we're pinching every penny. Discounts on conferences don't help, since I'm not going to any of them anyways. "Clubs" and magazines in general are hurting these days. There are so many free options out there that it's hard to get people to pay.
I'm a member of a few professional organizations. Most of them are kind of money grabs when it comes to anything education related. To maintain a certification I have to get 30 hours of continuing education each year and wouldn't you know that the professional organization is just all too happy to sell it to me for vaguely unreasonable amounts of money. Or I can attend about 15 meetings and conferences a year, also costing $ each time. I try not to get too worked up about it but it isn't cheap even if it sometimes is useful to be a member.
There are basically just a few reasons to join professional organizations. The biggest one by far is networking. These organizations can be a terrific way to get yourself known in your profession and sometimes get opportunities if you do it right. There also for some professions is accreditation and credentialing. I don't just mean joining the organization to have it on your resume. I have an accounting certification which has been very useful to me professionally. Sometimes there are learning opportunities which can be helpful though usually they are just pointless money grabs by the organization.
I do not see any value at all joining all of these organisations, much less paying for the privilege.
There can be lots of value to them but getting that value requires actual work on your part. If all you are doing is paying the membership fee to list it on your resume then there is no point to joining. However if you actually attend events, meet colleagues and talk with them, get involved in the organizations, etc you can actually get a ton of value out of them. I'm a member of two professional organizations (not ACM) which I actively participate in. I've gotten job interviews, excellent contacts for specific expertise, a certification important in my profession, contacts for funding, and even made some friends. You can get the most value often by being an officer in the organization (they always need help) and actually working hard to do a good job.
Starting in the middle of the naughts, Safari was replacing ACM/IEEE as being the choice for practitioners. By the Great Recession, when choices had to be made, the replacement was cemented.
ACM never helped me learn anything when i started.
ACM's article usually asked for fees to access their documents/papers.
Thanks to the above two, i had always in my head tagged ACM and ieee as associations of people who are not really interesting in perfectioning the art, but rather making money out of it. So yes, i viewed them both as dangers to the art of computing.
I'm a member of IEEE (Computer Society) & ACM. My employer pays for the first, I pay for the second (although being in each gives a small discount to being in the other). I'm not an academic, but I usually find an article or two worth reading each month in both Computer & in Communications of the ACM.
Of course, since I primarily design hardware rather than software, this might not count as a programmer joining the ACM:).
The prices for each don't seem out of range for the quality of the publications, and for a working professional they are certainly not hard to afford even if your employer doesn't cover them. IIRC those not working can get student or hardship discounts as appropriate.
Of course, I'm not buying a bunch of Journals in each. In the past knowing people who get each of the Journals I might need worked OK. Now the corporate library serves that need with subscriptions to the digital libraries.
I was a member through school, and early in my career. Those were different times. Now, basically everything I'd ever want to read is available online elsewhere. Why would I pay a large sum to the ACM? The ACM is a relic of eras gone, and while it's not too late for them to modernize, their time is likely limited.
Does anyone else think it makes Cerf look like a Dr. Evil-esque character?
I've recently thought again about potential membership of professional bodies. I used to be a student member of the ACM - and, despite a steep discount, I felt there was little value there... so dropped it as soon as my discount eligibility changed.
The idea that a professional body should prosper by restricting access to content might work in academia, but it does not represent a compelling proposition to me.
I would consider joining a professional body if it were:
1. Relevant to professionals who work with software - neither pandering to esoteric academic nor lowest common denominator content.
2. Needs to involve (fairly local) physical gatherings "Conferences" - at which I will meet relevant people and discover interesting things beyond what can be found on the web.
3. Needs to be recognised widely as conferring an active interest - to bolster academic credentials and professional engagements.
Not only does the ACM fail to meet even one of these criteria... I can't find any other organisation that does much better. In fact, I came to wonder if membership was actually counter-productive... does it suggest someone who is not sufficiently confident in their other credentials... someone who hopes to buy recognition.
I am an ACM member, but I'm not happy with it. My biggest complaint about the ACM is their failure to understand why copyright is bad and needs massive reform or abolishment. Instead, they jump in bed, ideologically, with copyright extremists! $100 membership isn't good enough for access to the digital library, have to pay another $100 for that? What a total money grab, locking up knowledge and for what? To coerce membership fees from researchers? Aren't they supposed to be a non-profit organization? The digital library should be public! Freely available to all, including non-members. Some years, CACM has had a "special" issue in the summer devoted to intellectual property issues. Some of those CACM articles are downright shameful in their unquestioned support of the current system, preferring to dive into how to use copyright when they haven't discussed why. It's like the whole fake "teach the controversy" debate between Evolution and Creationism. Any science magazine that dared treat Creationism as if it was valid science would quickly lose all respect and become a laughingstock. But the ACM still soberly talks as if copyright can somehow still work. It's like listening to some cranks say that they can fix the problems with the Theory of Intelligent Design, just have to do more exploration and research.
It's embarrassing. On technological matters, the ACM ought to be one of the most progressive organizations in existence. Instead, they were slow to get on the Internet. Their early websites were garbage nearly devoid of content, seemingly made live only because it was even more embarrassing not to have a website at all! They were late to the party for online renewal of membership. Yes, ACM has done online renewal for years, but they weren't the first to do that, far from it. Now they're going to be late to the death of copyright.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
I've never heard about this ACM thing. From the looks of the website it seems like some academic oriented CS club or something from the US. They even got a "german chapter" - suprised much I am. Don't know if I need to be in that club though. I doubt any programmer of importance I look up to is a member either. Linus Torwalds? RMS? Projekt Lead of Node.js? Don't think so. ... For example, I'd be suprised if more than 10% of the Blender crew even heard about this, let alone were a member.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I can't speak for programmers as I'm more on the sysadmin side of things but joined initially when I came across some really interesting articles on virtualization from their magazine. Then I started to get the magazine regularly and it was a horrible, horrible read. It's not designed for effective data transmission. It just felt like a way to allow fellow-nerds to get published. I'm able to gain more information from an issue of Wired than I was from an ACM mag. But that could just be me and my background. Their digital library, however, is a little easier to digest since you're only looking for specific things and was nice to have when writing academic papers. But again, if you're casually browsing - it's awful.
Been programming for decades, never heard of it.
Programmers probably don't join it because the ACM seems to mainly operate for its own benefit, charging rent on articles written by other people. How this benefits me, I do not know.
If I'm interested in learning something particular, google is usually a more efficient use of my time.
I've been a member of both ACM & IEEE for several decades. As a dinosaur, I much prefer print versions of all their varied pubs to any of the lame digital editions. I come from the academic world, but have been out of it for a long time and still find ACM relevant, especially after their revamp of Communications a couple of years ago. Practitioners? The Kode Vicious column is nearly the worth the price of subscription. I've never been interested in the Digital Library at extra cost, but it's probably worth it to some.
IEEE? Their Computer Society is marginally OK, but only for the Hal Berghel articles, as far as I'm concerned. IEEE Spectrum has become an exercise in suckitude, the bastard child of Wired's graphic design and Popular Science's "in depth" examination of current topics. Tired of this and their pimping life insurance, I've lapsed on IEEE membership and may do so for the Computer Society too in the near future.
That sounds like some schools that are loaded with theroy and lacking real skills.
I know this programer who went a to a state school and I have spotted quite a few bugs / coding errors in there code when it's running and I don't even work in QA or work at the place they work at.
ACM lost the mainstream audience back in the early 1980's when a group from HP's PARC got involved. Before then the SCM's focus was computers and software; those guys brought in their social and political agenda. The Journal became their soapbox for issues programmers didn't care about (similar to some of the off topic flame wars we've seen in slashdot over the past couple of years). Once they lost their audience they never got it back.
The ACM is not geared towards people that actually create software intended for everyday use. The IEEE is better in that respect and as an organization is far more involved in the day-to-day workings of the computing world.
When in college, back in the 80s, If first studied Chemical Engineering and the Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering (CSChE) and the Chemical Institute of Canada had local chapters on campus that were involved in campus life. The same was true for the IEEE, which had a local chapter as well. I had a chance to join the IEEE when I switched to studying Computer Science, but chose not to.
The ACM? Never heard of them. Who are they? What do they do? The were nowhere to be seen on campus.
If the ACM wants to become relevant outside its Ivory Tower then they need to descent down to the Journeyman's level. They may not have a choice if they want to survive let alone grow since like the middle class, Academia has been hollowed-out as well.
Finally, the company I work for as a Corporate account and I can browse the ACM's library at will. As a Chief Architect at a Fortune 30 company, the ACM offers very little that I can use on a day to day basis. I get more value for CIO, Dr Dobbs and the many other sources available on the Internet.
So ACM, debase or die!
"Staunchy" should be a word. I like the sound of it.
-kgj
The main reason not to join ACM is that they spam the hell out of their members (and even prospective members and former members). Here are just some examples of recent complaints from computing professionals:
I have never been a member of ACM myself, but my e-mail addresses are (or were, the last time I checked) regularly bombarded by their solicitations. Now everything from them just goes straight to the bit bucket.
It's not a "CS club", it's one of the largest academic communities in the world. Their weight varies by discipline, but in mine (computer graphics) they're ubiquitous: SIGGRAPH is run by the ACM. That's a conference with tens of thousands of attendees every year where major companies like Microsoft, NVIDIA, AMD, Intel, Autodesk and more go to show off their new research and products, both hardware and software.
The problem the ACM has is that joining has little incentive if you don't go to a conference. If you do, especially as a student, the steep discount makes it more than worth it, but otherwise there's little to gain that cannot be had elsewhere. Computer science in general has always been strong on giving out pre-prints of articles published in journals and conference proceedings, so you rarely need privileged access to eg. the ACM's publications. Their newsletter is neat in that they give job listings that I probably would have a hard time finding elsewhere, being so very focused, yet it's not particularly useful due to geographical spread and it's most certainly not worth the standard admission fee. I've had no incentive to dig around and figure out what else a membership offers, which goes to show...
Yeah, knowledge should be freely disseminated.
We've got a hard enough time keeping the brutals at bay as it is.
What are these guys a bunch of scientologists?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
A better question would be why should I join? What benefits are there to membership? I don't see any.
I notice people under 35 dont join much of anything whether its hiking groups, sports teams or professional societies. That generation isnt into groups.
The majority of programmers are under 35.
Gee, if you can find anything worth reading in CACM once a *year*, I'm impressed. CACM was a large part of why I let my ACM membership lapse; it was chock full of hand-waving and garbage, and it wasn't optional. If I could just get TODS, TOPLAS, and maybe Surveys, without CACM, I might still be a member. Maybe.
Some of the best developers I have worked with had active ACM memberships and they definitely did come across some exceptionally valuable papers through it.
I think that the reason why more people don't find the value is that the vast majority of software developers are either just code monkeys or have become the "Jack of all trades" type of technical leaders.
There are few opportunities to become a specialist in a single, very deep, area of expertise. You typically need to work for a big enough company who can justify such specialists and not have them constantly prodding you to "float around the company" (since there is an HR theory, currently in style, which states that you should encourage movement within an organization so people don't get bored - now you just alienate the people who like big, complex problems).
... this would appear to be a call for the ACM to adopt a more open model. And how could that be bad? [Respond on the form provided on the next page.]
I've been programming professional since 1995, never heard of them. I work primarily on open source systems and it seems like this organization is not really aimed at that group, at least based on the 'no code, behind a paywall' thing.
I contribute and volunteer on several open source projects, that's what I do to promote my interests and the interests of projects important to me and my career. Not sure how spending time and money on this ACM group would accomplish anything for me.
Peace, or Not?
I let my IEEE membership lapse when I got tired of feeling like no matter how many sub-memberships I had, I almost never had access to the journal articles I wanted. "Oh, you're a member of the Signal Processing Society. You'd need to be a member of the Society of Signal Processing (Splitters!) to get that article." It was starting to feel like this.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
From the point of view of academics, the response of Suresh Venkatasubramanian to Cerf's letter has been getting a lot of well-deserved attention, and is worth a read.
Last time I checked the ACM was pro software patents, but I can't verify that is the case now because as others have said, their website is awful.
To answer your question, Vin: The ACM keeps historically important computer science papers locked up behind a paywall. I mean, stuff from the 60s. They're scum. I hate them. Why are old computer science papers locked up behind a paywall? Especially ones that were made using government and university funds. The common heritage of hackers is being imprisoned behind a paywall that hackers hate. For starters, the ACM could release all papers from before say 1990 into the public domain for historical research. All the Scheme and LISP hacker documents. Any organization that's supposed to respect the history of computing could do no less. Let someone make a big torrent of all of them.
The same fragmentation exists for their conferences. Say, you're convinced that none of the established, reputable data mining conferences have a satisfactory number of hype words in their title, or possibly you couldn't get your paper accepted, and it's time to go to a conference on Big Data instead. Luckily, IEEE has you covered: this year you can attend the IEEE International Conference on Big Data Science and Engineering (BDSE 2014), the IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData 2014), and the IEEE International Conference on Big Data (IEEE BigData 2014). In any case, if you expect to meet colleagues at "this year's IEEE conference on Big Data", you better check they're actually going to the same city.
Once I became a working professional (Programmer, Software Engineer, Systems Engineer, other titles) the Special Interest Groups (SIGs in ACM speak) became more relevant to me. The organization has always suffered from being more academically oriented than geared towards the working professional.
I don't subscribe to the digital library (DL) because I find the cost prohibitively expensive for what I would use it for. The monthly journal attempts to cater to all sorts (professionals, researchers, academics) and I find a few articles each month of interest.
Does membership carry any prestige? As one can read from these comments, the answer is an overwhelming no - unless you are submitting articles to be published. Making it through the peer review cycle is an achievement. SIG membership gives you access to like minded folks for discussion.
Many of the benefits are now just perception as the world-wide web has subsumed most of what they offer.
Why do I stay a member? Mostly inertia, but I still value a printed resource delivered to my postal mail address rather than only digital medium for information.
"Software is the difference between hardware and reality"
I was a member as a student, though I don't recall ever getting any value out of it whatsoever at the time. After I graduated, I let it lapse for a few years, but eventually went back to try to renew my ACM (and IEEE) memberships. At the time, ACM wanted me to jump through so many hoops just for me to give them money, that I didn't bother. I later let the IEEE relapse as well, because all I was getting was emails (which I still get) and magazines (which I don't get, and never really read anyway).
As a professional, I can't see what value there is in ACM and IEEE. It was a waste of money, just to say I was a member, and get a bunch of emails and magazines I don't read. And I'm not even sure what I could suggest to make it worth the money. Sure, part of it was on me for not getting involved more, but I never felt like it was worth doing.
My ethics conflict with what they consider ethical behavior. In fact I see the code of ethics itself as being unethical. Another issue I have is how the ACM talks about "property rights". I can deal with patents, copyrights, and trademarks, but I can't take any organization seriously that uses words like “intellectual property”.
I believe you should never deny another person access to the code which you've distributed. The entire ACM code of ethics appears to be in place to codify the agenda of profiting off the exploitation of peoples lack of freedom. It's everything I'm against as a free software advocate.
I don't agree with the copyright system itself even if I have to work within it. I don't feel I should require permission or that a code of ethics should inhibit me from sharing code I posses. That is why I will never become a member of the ACM.
In addition the organization does not seem to be very favorable to users freedom. It's existence is itself an organization based on selfish purposes (for programmers, a select elite) despite the overall idea that of the code of ethics being to 'not do bad stuff'. I don't feel we need an organization to tell us not to share privately held data or similar.
I'm a hacker- and not one that breaks into things- however I also feel it's illogical to refrain from breaking into things when there is plenty of competition from parts of the world which disregard such behavior as being bad (at least when it is favorable to 'them'). All this does is weaken our standards such that it makes it easier for people with devious intent to act malicious ('breaking in'). It gives people a false perception that there is 'law'. In reality there is no 'law'. There is only security by way of design and code. That's what the ACM should be about. Living up to high coding standards, proper implementations, design, etc. We should not self-impose artificial restrictions as if we can control something we certainly can not. It merely dampens US economic progress.
1.5 Honor property rights including copyrights and patent.
Violation of copyrights, patents, trade secrets and the terms of license agreements is prohibited by law in most circumstances. Even when software is not so protected, such violations are contrary to professional behavior. Copies of software should be made only with proper authorization. Unauthorized duplication of materials must not be condoned
Aint dat wat Rev Jesse Jackson said? Nobody wants to join any club that diverse.
I'm a member of the ACM, and it's worth it just for the monthly Communications of the ACM.
My guess is that the ACM is not visible enough.
Besides all the other issues (prices go up steeply when you aren't a student, low signal-to-noise ratio per expensive journal...), the "Code of Ethics" "Do no harm" clause has in past years been interpreted to mean that defense industry work is unethical and should be discouraged (if not grounds for expulsion from the ACM). Perhaps they've changed on that, but I haven't been back to find out. I know that myself and a great many of my fellow programmers were pretty insulted to be told that we were "unethical" for building weapons for the defense of our own country. At the time, the IEEE did not have such a clause and attitude, so many of us switched memberships to the IEEE.
---dragoness
I have had continuous membership in ACM since 1970. I've been renewing for several years out of habit, but this discussion has convinced me not to renew again.
And they shut down my shell account 15 years later citing that we can easily host our web content elsewhere. Nevermind that I'd built a web presence on non-rotting link URLs for 15 years. so yea... I paid the ACM for decades, and if i could go back in time, I would un-join, and not pay them a damn penny. Special thanks to Virginia Tech sysadmin John Edstrom for ruining it for us.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
...typically full of arrogant people that are extremely focused on academics and doesn't have much if anything that applies to the real-world programmer.
Serious, I belong to IEEE which is a lot more practical. I don't belong to IEEE's Computer Society since it is very theoretical and not very useful. However, IEEE has many many benefits which are well worth the money.
I'd love to see a proper Computer Software Engineering organization devoted to the practical every-day programmer, and not academic theories.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)