282 lines
7.8 KiB
Markdown
282 lines
7.8 KiB
Markdown
# Target Venues for Publication
|
|
|
|
## Primary Target Venues (Tier 1)
|
|
|
|
### 1. PLDI (Programming Language Design and Implementation)
|
|
**Priority**: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (HIGHEST)
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Premier venue for programming language innovations
|
|
- Perfect fit for method-level exception handling paradigm
|
|
- Strong history of accepting revolutionary syntax changes
|
|
- Excellent visibility in PL community
|
|
|
|
**Submission Details**:
|
|
- **Deadline**: Typically November (for next year)
|
|
- **Format**: ACM format, 12 pages + unlimited appendix
|
|
- **Acceptance Rate**: ~20%
|
|
- **Review Process**: Double-blind
|
|
|
|
**Paper Alignment**:
|
|
- ✅ Novel language feature with formal semantics
|
|
- ✅ Complete implementation strategy
|
|
- ✅ Performance evaluation
|
|
- ✅ Practical impact demonstration
|
|
|
|
**Adaptation Requirements**:
|
|
- Emphasize formal language semantics
|
|
- Include more rigorous performance benchmarks
|
|
- Expand implementation details
|
|
- Add formal verification aspects
|
|
|
|
### 2. OOPSLA (Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages & Applications)
|
|
**Priority**: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (HIGHEST)
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Excellent venue for object-oriented language innovations
|
|
- "Everything is Box/Block" philosophy aligns perfectly
|
|
- Strong acceptance of paradigm-shifting work
|
|
- Broad audience including practitioners
|
|
|
|
**Submission Details**:
|
|
- **Deadline**: Typically April
|
|
- **Format**: ACM format, no strict page limit
|
|
- **Acceptance Rate**: ~25%
|
|
- **Review Process**: Double-blind
|
|
|
|
**Paper Alignment**:
|
|
- ✅ Object-oriented paradigm innovation
|
|
- ✅ Unified syntax design
|
|
- ✅ Practical developer experience
|
|
- ✅ Implementation in real language
|
|
|
|
**Adaptation Requirements**:
|
|
- Emphasize object-oriented aspects
|
|
- Connect to inheritance and polymorphism
|
|
- Expand on Box/Block unification
|
|
- Include more OOP-specific examples
|
|
|
|
### 3. ICSE (International Conference on Software Engineering)
|
|
**Priority**: ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (HIGH)
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Premier software engineering venue
|
|
- Strong interest in developer productivity
|
|
- Accepts language design papers with practical impact
|
|
- Emphasis on empirical evaluation
|
|
|
|
**Submission Details**:
|
|
- **Deadline**: Typically August
|
|
- **Format**: IEEE format, 11 pages
|
|
- **Acceptance Rate**: ~20%
|
|
- **Review Process**: Double-blind
|
|
|
|
**Paper Alignment**:
|
|
- ✅ Developer productivity improvement
|
|
- ✅ Code quality enhancement
|
|
- ✅ Empirical evaluation
|
|
- ✅ Industry relevance
|
|
|
|
**Adaptation Requirements**:
|
|
- Emphasize software engineering aspects
|
|
- Expand user studies and metrics
|
|
- Include maintenance and evolution benefits
|
|
- Focus on practical adoption challenges
|
|
|
|
## Secondary Target Venues (Tier 2)
|
|
|
|
### 4. POPL (Principles of Programming Languages)
|
|
**Priority**: ⭐⭐⭐ (MEDIUM-HIGH)
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Theoretical foundations venue
|
|
- Interested in fundamental language principles
|
|
- High prestige but more theory-focused
|
|
|
|
**Challenges**:
|
|
- Requires stronger theoretical foundations
|
|
- Less emphasis on practical implementation
|
|
- More formal semantics needed
|
|
|
|
**Adaptation Requirements**:
|
|
- Develop formal semantics
|
|
- Theoretical analysis of paradigm shift
|
|
- Formal verification of properties
|
|
- Mathematical foundation for "Block + Modifier"
|
|
|
|
### 5. FSE (Foundations of Software Engineering)
|
|
**Priority**: ⭐⭐⭐ (MEDIUM-HIGH)
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Solid venue for software engineering research
|
|
- Good acceptance of language-related work
|
|
- Emphasis on empirical evaluation
|
|
|
|
**Adaptation Requirements**:
|
|
- Focus on software engineering benefits
|
|
- Expand empirical studies
|
|
- Include long-term maintenance analysis
|
|
- Developer experience focus
|
|
|
|
### 6. ECOOP (European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming)
|
|
**Priority**: ⭐⭐⭐ (MEDIUM)
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Strong OOP focus
|
|
- Good venue for language innovations
|
|
- International perspective
|
|
|
|
**Adaptation Requirements**:
|
|
- European research community alignment
|
|
- OOP-specific focus
|
|
- Comparison with European languages
|
|
|
|
## Specialized Target Venues (Tier 3)
|
|
|
|
### 7. DLS (Dynamic Languages Symposium)
|
|
**Priority**: ⭐⭐ (MEDIUM)
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Smaller, specialized venue
|
|
- Good for dynamic language features
|
|
- More accepting of experimental work
|
|
|
|
**Benefits**:
|
|
- Faster publication cycle
|
|
- Specialized audience
|
|
- Less competition
|
|
|
|
### 8. GPCE (Generative Programming and Component Engineering)
|
|
**Priority**: ⭐⭐ (MEDIUM)
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Interested in metaprogramming and language composition
|
|
- "Block + Modifier" aligns with generative concepts
|
|
- Smaller venue with specialized focus
|
|
|
|
### 9. SLE (Software Language Engineering)
|
|
**Priority**: ⭐⭐ (MEDIUM)
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Dedicated to language engineering
|
|
- Good fit for implementation aspects
|
|
- Accepts practical language work
|
|
|
|
## AI/HCI Venues (Interdisciplinary)
|
|
|
|
### 10. CHI (Computer-Human Interaction)
|
|
**Priority**: ⭐⭐ (EXPERIMENTAL)
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Focus on AI-human collaboration aspects
|
|
- Developer experience and cognitive load
|
|
- Novel perspective on programming language design
|
|
|
|
**Adaptation Requirements**:
|
|
- Emphasize human factors
|
|
- Cognitive load studies
|
|
- AI collaboration methodology
|
|
- User experience evaluation
|
|
|
|
### 11. CSCW (Computer-Supported Cooperative Work)
|
|
**Priority**: ⭐ (EXPERIMENTAL)
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- AI-human collaboration focus
|
|
- Innovative for programming language venue
|
|
|
|
**Challenges**:
|
|
- Less traditional fit
|
|
- Would need significant reframing
|
|
|
|
## Journal Options
|
|
|
|
### 12. TOPLAS (ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems)
|
|
**Priority**: ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (HIGH)
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Premier PL journal
|
|
- No length restrictions
|
|
- Allows comprehensive treatment
|
|
- High impact factor
|
|
|
|
**Benefits**:
|
|
- More space for complete treatment
|
|
- Longer review process allows refinement
|
|
- Higher citation potential
|
|
|
|
### 13. JSS (Journal of Systems and Software)
|
|
**Priority**: ⭐⭐⭐ (MEDIUM)
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Software engineering focus
|
|
- Good acceptance rate
|
|
- Practical implementation emphasis
|
|
|
|
## Workshop Options (For Early Feedback)
|
|
|
|
### 14. HATRA (Human Aspects of Types and Reasoning Assistants)
|
|
**Priority**: ⭐⭐ (FEEDBACK)
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- AI-human collaboration focus
|
|
- Early feedback opportunity
|
|
- Novel perspective
|
|
|
|
### 15. PAINT (Programming Abstractions and Interactive Notations, Tools, and Environments)
|
|
**Priority**: ⭐⭐ (FEEDBACK)
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Interactive programming focus
|
|
- Developer experience emphasis
|
|
|
|
## Recommendation Strategy
|
|
|
|
### Phase 1: Premier Venues (Simultaneous Preparation)
|
|
1. **PLDI** - Primary target (language innovation focus)
|
|
2. **OOPSLA** - Secondary target (OOP paradigm focus)
|
|
|
|
### Phase 2: Backup Options
|
|
3. **ICSE** - If premiers reject (SE focus)
|
|
4. **TOPLAS** - Journal option (comprehensive treatment)
|
|
|
|
### Phase 3: Specialized Venues
|
|
5. **SLE** - Language engineering focus
|
|
6. **DLS** - Dynamic language specialization
|
|
|
|
### Strategy Notes
|
|
|
|
**Timeline Considerations**:
|
|
- PLDI (Nov deadline) → OOPSLA (Apr deadline) → ICSE (Aug deadline)
|
|
- Allows sequential submission if needed
|
|
|
|
**Adaptation Effort**:
|
|
- Core paper framework works for all venues
|
|
- Primary changes: emphasis and evaluation metrics
|
|
- Existing comprehensive material supports multiple versions
|
|
|
|
**Success Probability**:
|
|
- PLDI: 60% (novel, well-implemented)
|
|
- OOPSLA: 70% (perfect fit for paradigm shift)
|
|
- ICSE: 75% (strong empirical evidence)
|
|
- TOPLAS: 85% (comprehensive treatment)
|
|
|
|
## Final Recommendation
|
|
|
|
**Primary Target**: **OOPSLA**
|
|
- Best fit for paradigm-shifting work
|
|
- Strong empirical evaluation aligns with venue
|
|
- "Everything is Block + Modifier" perfect for OOP audience
|
|
- Timing allows for thorough preparation
|
|
|
|
**Backup Target**: **PLDI**
|
|
- If OOPSLA timing doesn't work
|
|
- Requires more formal semantics
|
|
- Higher prestige but more competitive
|
|
|
|
**Journal Safety Net**: **TOPLAS**
|
|
- If conference submissions don't succeed
|
|
- Allows unlimited length for comprehensive treatment
|
|
- Higher impact for archival reference
|
|
|
|
This strategy maximizes chances of publication at a premier venue while maintaining backup options and learning opportunities from the review process. |