Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!cs.utexas.edu!rice!news
From: preston@ariel.rice.edu (Preston Briggs)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: standard extensions
Message-ID: <1991Feb18.154550.17512@rice.edu>
Date: 18 Feb 91 15:45:50 GMT
Sender: news@rice.edu (News)
Organization: Rice University, Houston
Lines: 37

hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>This assumes that the one who needs the operations, or the
>>improved performance, has the resources and time to do this.
>>Montgomery and Silverman are number theorists, I am a professor
>>of Statistics and Mathematics.  We are expected to do other
>>things.

dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
>This is a problem I have grappled with at virtually every stage
>of my own work: I see all these interesting and compelling tools
>the computer people create for their own work, or their own idea
>of a market. Needless to say, if one has anything resembling a
>specialized need, one finds oneself shunted off the mainstream
>into a sort of computer orphanage.

I was pessimistic in an earlier posting;
here's an optimistic view.

One possibility is try to lure computer scientists into your
area with promises of interesting new problems to work on.
That's worked well on some prominent people I've met.

One example is Eugene Myers, who's done significant work in
algorithms and optimization.  Recently though, he's been
working on gene sequencing, etc., supporting the Human Genome
project.  (I should point out that "recently" is several years.
These are long term commitments.)

A 2nd example is Guy Steele.  He has said that he envisions
himself as a guy who builds tools to support AI research.

---

I hope I haven't misrepresented these people.
I respect them both for vision, energy, and accomplishments.

Preston Briggs