International Workshop on Context-Oriented Programming - COP '09 2009
DOI: 10.1145/1562112.1562118
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of context-oriented programming languages

Abstract: Context-oriented programming (COP) extensions have been implemented for several languages. Each concrete language design and implementation comes with different variations of the features of the COP paradigm. In this paper, we provide a comparison of eleven COP implementations, discuss their designs, and evaluate their performance.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
59
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 97 publications
(68 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
2
59
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous work [38] highlighted a huge performance impact of COP and motivated research on possible optimizations [39]. Our evaluation confirms this result.…”
Section: Performancesupporting
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Previous work [38] highlighted a huge performance impact of COP and motivated research on possible optimizations [39]. Our evaluation confirms this result.…”
Section: Performancesupporting
confidence: 83%
“…This effort has been extended to less dynamic languages, in which COP extensions are more difficult to implement due to the limited reflective capabilities, such as Java [7,15,19,21,42]. A comparison of the existing COP languages with a performance evaluation of the available solutions can be found in [38]. Our recent work [8] surveys the available solutions and compares them from a software engineering standpoint.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…So far, most efforts have been directed towards the design and implementation of concrete languages, as e.g. Erlang, Java, JavaScript, Python, Ruby, and Smalltalk (a comparison can be found in [Appeltauer et al 2009]). Only few works provide a foundational account of programming languages extended with COP facilities like, e.g., the object-oriented ones of [Clarke et al 2009;Hirschfeld et al 2011;Aotani et al 2011] and the functional one of [Degano et al 2012].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Janssen et al [21] use skeleton applications and simulations to explore how different message exchange schemes will perform on future hardware. Appeltauer et al [22] compare eleven context-oriented languages using micro-benchmarks and show that they often have high execution overhead.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%