Subject: Re: Request to review a paper C497 From: Zoran Budimlic Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:41:03 -0600 To: fox@csit.fsu.edu Paper: C497 Java for High-Performance Computing M. Lobosco, C. Amorim, and O. Loques Recommendation: Publish after a major revision Comments for the editor and the authors: This paper makes an attempt at creating an overview of systems and environments designed to support Java in HP computing. As such, the technical contribution of the paper itself is minimal, but the potential overall value to a reader interested in Java for HP computing is high. It is my opinion that such overview papers must pay special attention to the quality of the presentation, as their targeted audience is potentially much higher than that of strictly technical papers. While the technical aspects of different HP Java systems and environments are relatively well presented and contrasted, this paper has many stylistic and grammatical errors that, if corrected, would make it much easier to follow. Here are some typical errors found throughout the paper. This is by no means an exhaustive list. - page 4. You claim that Java is a subset of C++, which I strongly disagree with. Perhaps you wanted to say that Java syntax is similar to that of C++, Java and C++ as languages have _very_ little in common. - page 6, line 12 of the code 1: There's an inverted exclamation point (!) symbol between position and size, used as an operator. - pages 7 & 8: Code 2 is fragmented over 2 pages, with only one line on the page 8. - page 9, line 10 of Code 3: You probably meant " int index = --count" instead of "int index = -count" - page 9, line 11 of Code 3: index and 0 are compared with an inverse question mark (?) operator, which doesn't exist in Java - page 10: Figure 1 (and other figures in the paper) are unacceptably low-res. - page 15, line 3 of the second paragraph: "inter-process communication, namely distributed ... " not "inter-process communication namely. distributed ..." - page 17: there's a huge gap between the end of the section and the heading of the Environments section. - page 17, line 6 of the second paragraph: "...proposal uses more than one technique ...", not "...proposal uses more than a technique..." - page 17, line 8 of the second paragraph, lines 1 & 2 of the third paragraph: you refer to sections by numbers, but the sections in your paper are not numbered - page 18, line 3: Two systems fall "in" this class, not "on" this class. - page 19, last line of the second paragraph: "...perhaps because IT has not been implemented yet." - page 21, 2nd line of 3rd paragraph: "pBOB was INSPIRED on the TPC-C benchmarks" I don't know what do you mean by "inspired" - page 21, 5th line of 3rd par. "..., but considering that ...", not "..., but on considering that..." - page 21, headings of the next section appear on the bottom of the page, but no text follows them. These headings should be on the next page. - page 22, line 3 of par. 2: "created using TreadMarks" not "created with the use of TreadMarks" - page 24, line 3, par. 4: "...self-invalidation, IN which every time..." - page 24, line 6, par. 4 "overhead", not "overheads" - page 25, you are using semicolon (;) to enumerate things, like "... programs: (a) are race-condition free; (b) have ...". Use comma (,) instead. This appears in all your enumerations in the paper. - page 28, line 1, par. 2: Do not refer to your references directly, as in "In [28] execution times for ..." - page 30, line 4, par 2: " The programmer must then provide...", not "provide then". - page 30, line5, par 3: "limits", not "limit" - page 31, line3, par 3: "... results so far." , not "... results, so far." - page 31, line 1, par 4: "... since both keep...", not "... since that both keep..." - page 32, line 5, par 2: What do you mean by "Jackal's new memory model is also arguable." ? - page 32, line 8, par 3: "...Charlotte designers might...", not "...Challote might..." - page 33, last sentence, par 1: "in Java" appears twice. - page 34, last line, par 1: "...which is significantly lower.", not "...that is significantly lower." - page 35, paragraph 2: a very chopped sentence, try creating two sentences. - page 36, paragraph 1: There are three different references to JPVM (17, 42 and 45) that you introduce at different points in the paragraph. Introduce them together if they all refer to JPVM, or introduce them at different points in the text if they refer to different aspects of JPVM. As it is now, they all refer to JPVM in general. - page 36, line 7, par 3: "...room...", not "...scope...". - page 36. Do not italicize "hashtable" or "bytecode", here or anywhere else in the paper, except on their first appearance in the paper. - page 39, line 1: 1719.87 microseconds has a footnote mark that does not have a corresponding footnote. - page 39, line 3: What do you mean by "This result is overestimated..." ? - page 39, line1, par 2: "Manta also shows..." not "Manta alsoshows..." - page 39, line 2, par 2: As written, your sentence means: "benchmarks were widely favorable to Manta when compared with JDK performance", which is probably not the intended meaning. - page 39, line 2, par 3: "programmer TO indicate" - page 41, line 7: "... ON the processor...", not "... in the processor..." - page 42, line 5, par 3: "... as well as" should not be followed by a comma. - page 44, line 3, par 2: "... and a body which is the ..." - page 44, line 9, par 2: "creating", not "creation of" - page 45, line 2: "possible" should go to the end of the sentence. - page 45, line 3: "does not need", instead of "needs not" - page 45, line 5, par 2: keep "serveOldestBu(method met)" on the same line. - page 46, line 10, par 2: "on disks" instead of "in disks" - page 46, line 12, par 2: "objects' lifetimes", not "object's lifetimes" - page 47, line 2, par 2: You are mixing active and passive forms here, JDK "implements" buffered streams but buffering strategy "is implemented" - page 48, last line, par 1: "five more" instead of "more five" - page 49, line 5: "in an environment", not "to an environment" - page 49, line 6: "to a native library", not "with a native library" - page 49, line 14: you cannot use "either" when you use "or similar" - page 50, line 7: "The authors assume THAT this is ..." - page 50, last line, par 1: "on the same platform AS described above" or "on the platform described above" - page 50, line 4, par 3: Parts of a sentence separated by a semicolon should form a complete sentence. - page 51, line 5, par 2: You need comma after "remote" - page 51, line 10, par 2: "in" instead of "within" - page 52, line 4, par 2: "on other platforms", not "in other platforms" - page 52, line 2, par 3: "Javia performance was excellent --- just 1% ..." - page 53, line 6: "Java's" not "Javas" - page 53, last line, par 2: "this model often performs", not "often this model performs" - page 54, last line, par 1: "the author focused ON." - page 55, line 4 "We assume" or "We assert", not "We consider" - page 55, line 5, par 2: "force" instead of "incur in" - page 55, line 8: "..., IT can improve performance..." - page 56, last sentence, par 2: no need for colon after "in Java" - page 57, second sentence, par 3: as written, it means that the "systems" have started the implementation. - page 57, last sentence, par 3: put "difficult" at the end of the sentence. Like I said, this is by no means an exhaustive list of all the grammar and stylistic errors in the paper. I strongly recommend to the authors to consider seeking the help of an English language expert when rewriting this paper. Geoffrey Fox wrote: Ken Kennedy suggested that you might be able to referee the following paper. I thank you for considering this Geoffrey Fox --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am editor for a practical computer/computational science journal Concurrency and Computation:Practice and Experience. I thought you might be able to provide me a referee report by March 31 2001 on the paper C497: Java for High-Performance Computing by M. Lobosco, C. Amorim, and O. Loques The full text of this paper can be found at http://aspen.csit.fsu.edu/CCPEwebresource/C497loques/JavaHighPerformanceComputing.pdf I am switching the journal to completely electronic form and hope you could email me a report. Please send a short email if you can or cannot do this Please do this in "free form" mentioning paper metadata above Alternatively use form appended. Note you can find the form and some other information at: http://aspen.csit.fsu.edu/CandCPandE/index.html Thank you Geoffrey --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CandC:PandE Referee Report Form -- Electronic Transimission to fox@csit.fsu.edu strongly preferred Referees Web Page: http://aspen.csit.fsu.edu/CandCPandE/ Email fox@csit.fsu.edu for URL of full paper to be reviewed WILEY Journal Home Page http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=5361 John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. Baffins Lane, Chichester West Sussex, PO19 1UD, England Telephone: (01243) 779777 Fax: (01243) 770379 REFEREE'S REPORT Concurrency and Computation:Practice and Experience --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A: General Information Please return to: Geoffrey C. Fox Electronically Preferred fox@csit.fsu.edu Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience Computational Science and Information Technology Florida State University 400 Dirac Science Library Tallahassee Florida 32306-4130 Office FAX 850-644-0098 Office Phone 850-644-4587 but best is cell phone 3152546387 Please fill in Summary Conclusions (Sec. C) and details as appropriate in Secs. D, E and F. B: Refereeing Philosophy We encourage a broad range of readers and contributors. Please judge papers on their technical merit and separate comments on this from those on style and approach. Keep in mind the strong practical orientation that we are trying to give the journal. Note that the forms attached provide separate paper for comments that you wish only the editor to see and those that both the editor and author receive. Your identity will of course not be revealed to the author. C: Paper and Referee Metadata * Paper Number Cnnn: * Date: * Paper Title: * Author(s): * Referee: * Address: Referee Recommendations. Please indicate overall recommendations here, and details in following sections. 1. publish as is 2. accepted provided changes suggested are made 3. reject D: Referee Comments (For Editor Only) E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor) F: Presentation Changes