Evolving a DSL Implementation

Tratt, Laurence

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88643-3_11

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This section shows a simple but complete usage example of Neverlang. The example is the same state machine DSL in [49]. Just like in Tratt's paper, the DSL will be evolved through extension; but, in our case, we will show that the same kind of language extension can be achieved in Neverlang using language components.…”

Section: Case Study: Evolution Of a Dsl Through Compositionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Neverlang: A framework for feature-oriented language development

Vacchi

Cazzola

2015

Computer Languages, Systems & Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Case Study: Evolution Of a Dsl Through Compositionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Neverlang: A framework for feature-oriented language development

Vacchi

Cazzola

2015

Computer Languages, Systems & Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We will take the state machine DSL and evolve it by plugging in a new feature, borrowing part of its implementation from a distinct language: we will substitute the simple transitions of the running example with an alternative implementation, with support for guards and actions. This example is an adaptation from [25], but, in contrast to this work, in our case the language for guards and actions is implemented as a standalone language. We want to show that using our approach, it is easy to plug the trait-based implementation of the syntax and the semantics of this separate language into the initial state machine language, and to substitute part of the original implementation with new components.…”

Section: Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As our running example we will use a simple State Machine language similar to the one from Tratt's paper [25] (see Listing 2). Similarly to Tratt, we will also show how to extend the basic state machine DSL with guards and action language; but in our case the extended DSL will be the result of composing together traits from the basic state machine language and a separate action language.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language components for modular DSLs using traits

Cazzola

Vacchi

2016

Computer Languages, Systems & Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent advances in tooling and modern programming languages have progressively brought back the practice of developing domain-specific languages as a means to improve software development. Consequently, the problem of making composition between languages easier by emphasizing code reuse and componentized programming is a topic of increasing interest in research. In fact, it is not uncommon for different languages to share common features, and, because in the same project different DSLs may coexist to model concepts from different problem areas, it is interesting to study ways to develop modular, extensible languages. Earlier work has shown that traits can be used to modularize the semantics of a language implementation; a lot of attention is often spent on embedded DSLs; even when external DSLs are discussed, the main focus is on modularizing the semantics. In this paper we will show a complete trait-based approach to modularize not only the semantics but also the syntax of external DSLs, thereby simplifying extension and therefore evolution of a language implementation. We show the benefits of implementing these techniques using the Scala programming language.

show abstract

“…Frag is the only approach that supports both approaches. Converge's approach [Tra08a,Tra08b] is to provide DSL blocks that contain DSL code. Hence, Converge combines embedded or external DSLs, too.…”

Section: Related Work On Dsl Toolkitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A DSL toolkit for deferring architectural decisions in DSL-based software design

Zdun

2010

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of mature toolkits and language workbenches for DSL-based design have been proposed, making DSL-based design attractive for many projects. These toolkits preselect many architectural decision options. However, in many cases it would be beneficial for DSL-based design to decide for the DSL's architecture later on in a DSL project, once the requirements and the domain have been sufficiently understood. We propose a language and a number of DSLs for DSL-based design and development that combine important benefits of different DSL toolkits in a unique way. Our approach specifically targets at deferring architectural decisions in DSL-based design. As a consequence, the architect can choose, even late in a DSL project, for options such as whether to provide the DSL as one or more external or embedded DSLs and whether or not to use an explicit language model.

show abstract

Evolving a DSL Implementation

Cited by 4 publications

References 14 publications

Neverlang: A framework for feature-oriented language development

Neverlang: A framework for feature-oriented language development

Language components for modular DSLs using traits

A DSL toolkit for deferring architectural decisions in DSL-based software design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About