Subject: Compact applications chapter

From: David W. Walker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 93 09:16:19 -0500

I just sent the following to Mike Berry, but some of you might also like to make
suggestions.

David

Mike,
	I am a bit of a loss as to what to put into the ParkBench report
for Compact Application since we haven't had any codes submitted (except
for maybe 2 or 3).  It seems to me that we can't really say much without
the codes, about from very general requirements.

David

---

From: [email-masked] (Pat Worley)
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 93 10:16:56 EDT

>the codes, about from very general requirements.

Since I imagine that there will always be a dearth of (good) compact
applications, a requirements document (or, at least, a wish list) would be a
useful contribution, particularly if the wishlist were prioritized by what is
most important for the code to have, e.g.,

1) scientific relevance (does anyone care about this type of problem)
2) numerical relevance (are the numerical algorithms representative or
   interesting) 
3) algorithmic relevance (are the parallel algorithms representative or
   interesting)
4) portability (language, parallel programming model, etc.)
5) runability (easy to run, easy to validate results, easy to use for
   benchmarking)
6) ...

This can probably be broken into requirements and desirable features.

Pat