2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.entcs.2011.06.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative Study of DSL Tools

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, specification languages can be easily adopted to our approach. Users can select a specification language from the exisiting ones or develop new domain-specific languages for the specification [23]. The usual specification methods support only one specification language at all.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, specification languages can be easily adopted to our approach. Users can select a specification language from the exisiting ones or develop new domain-specific languages for the specification [23]. The usual specification methods support only one specification language at all.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, Oliveira and colleagues [9] conducted a study of Domain-Specific Language where no data about accomplishment were provided. Furthermore, the authors of [22] and [23] focused on language composability and offered specifics on how they might cover many language workbenches.…”
Section: Litrature Reviewsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A unified DSL is designed to be implemented by the ten approaches to compare the DSL implementation effort and the end-user effort to build programs with the given DSL. Similar work is done by [10] to evaluate four DSL implementation approaches based on unified state machine DSL. It concludes that no single approach is valid for all scenarios.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%