Scenario-Based Programming, Usability-Oriented Perception

Alexandron, Giora; Armoni, Michal; Gordon, Michal; Harel, David

doi:10.1145/2648814

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To address this goal, several extensions to the paradigm have been proposed to improve this alignment and remove the necessity of specifying mechanisms [9], [10], [11]. Also, user studies measured the naturalness and intuitiveness of the paradigm, compared to other paradigms [12], [13].…”

Section: Mingmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Petri Nets Oblige us to Say Comparing Approaches for Behavior Composition

Elyasaf

Yaacov

Weiss

2023

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We identify and demonstrate a weakness of Petri Nets (PN) in specifying composite behavior of reactive systems. Specifically, we show how, when specifying multiple requirements in one PN model, modelers are obliged to specify mechanisms for combining these requirements. This yields, in many cases, over-specification and incorrect models. We demonstrate how some execution paths are missed, and some are generated unintentionally. To support this claim, we analyze PN models from the literature, identify the combination mechanisms, and demonstrate their effect on the correctness of the model. To address this problem, we propose to model the system behavior using behavioral programming (BP), a software development and modeling paradigm designed for seamless integration of independent requirements. Specifically, we demonstrate how the semantics of BP, which define how to interweave scenarios into a single model, allow avoiding the over-specification. Additionally, while BP maintains the same mathematical properties as PN, it provides means for changing the model dynamically, thus increasing the agility of the specification. We compare BP and PN in quantitative and qualitative measures by analyzing the models, their generated execution paths, and the specification process. Finally, while BP is supported by tools that allow for applying formal methods and reasoning techniques to the model, it lacks the legacy of PN tools and algorithms. To address this issue, we propose semantics and a tool for translating BP models to PN and vice versa.

show abstract

Section: Mingmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Petri Nets Oblige us to Say Comparing Approaches for Behavior Composition

Elyasaf

Yaacov

Weiss

2023

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To address this goal, several extensions to the paradigm have been proposed to improve this alignment and remove the necessity of specifying mechanisms [8], [9], [10]. Also, user studies measured the naturalness and intuitiveness of the paradigm, compared to other programming paradigms [11], [12].…”

Section: Mingmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Petri Net Obliges Us to Say: Comparing Approaches for Behavior Composition

Elyasaf¹,

Yaacov²,

Weiss³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We identify and demonstrate a weakness of Petri Nets (PN) in specifying complex behavior. Specifically, we show how, when specifying multiple requirements in one Petri net model, modelers are obliged to specify mechanisms for combining these requirements. This yields, in many cases, over-specification and incorrect models. We demonstrate how some execution paths are missed, and some are generated unintentionally. To support this claim, we analyze Petri net models from the literature, identify the combination mechanisms, and demonstrate their effect on the correctness of the model. To address this problem, we propose to model the system behavior using behavioral programming (BP), a software development and modeling paradigm designed for seamless integration of independent requirements. Specifically, we demonstrate how the semantics of BP, which define how to interweave scenarios into a single model, allow avoiding the over-specification. Additionally, while BP maintains the same mathematical properties as PN, it provides means for changing the model dynamically, thus increasing the agility of the specification. We compare BP and PN in quantitative and qualitative measures by analyzing the models, their generated execution paths, and the specification process. Finally, while BP is supported by tools that allow for applying formal methods and reasoning techniques to the model, it lacks the legacy of PN tools and algorithms. To address this issue, we propose semantics and a tool for translating BP models to PN and vice versa.

show abstract

“…The work of [19] starts out from the observation that "programs" are complex objects with different facets. 4 They are real -they affect our real lives; they are abstract -they process abstract entities; and they are concrete -they take up space in digital devices' memory, and can be copied, transferred, and corrupted. The recent PROGRAMme project 5 also starts out from the question "What is a computer program?…”

Section: Definitions Of Programs Through the History And Philosophy O...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alexandron et al ( 2014) [4] Part II of the framework complements the discussion on programs' facets by depicting, through a concept map, the relationships of programs with other concepts that are usually referred to when talking about programs. The map is shown in Figure 3.…”

Section: Part II -How Programs Are Createdmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As pointed out by Alexandron and colleagues [4], meaningful programs must be understood in connection with some extrinsic (to the program) context that imparts the meaning. The significance of the relationships between the machine and the "outside world" is emphasised, in particular, in the software engineering milieu: see e.g.…”

Section: Part II -How Programs Are Createdmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What We Talk About When We Talk About Programs

Lonati

Brodnik

Bell

et al. 2022

Proceedings of the 2022 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Programming plays a paramount role in many educational policies and initiatives. However, the current focus on coding skills poses the risk of giving students an overly simplistic and impoverished idea of what programming means and involves. Their experiences would be much more significant if learning encompassed understanding the richness of the nature of programs.Programs permeate our lives more inextricably than might often be recognised, and all citizens of the digital era could benefit from understanding their multifaceted nature. A fundamental component of such an understanding is getting a sense of how programs are created and work (i.e., the programming process).But programs are strange creatures that escape simple definitions. To the best of our knowledge, there is no Nature of Programs framework that teachers and policy makers can use to shape their practice and targets. In this working group we developed such a framework, by collecting and organising contributions from the literature and the computer science education community. The paper presents the framework and the rationale behind its development. It is anticipated that the framework can be used to inform the design * co-leader

show abstract

Scenario-Based Programming, Usability-Oriented Perception

Cited by 8 publications

References 31 publications

What Petri Nets Oblige us to Say Comparing Approaches for Behavior Composition

What Petri Nets Oblige us to Say Comparing Approaches for Behavior Composition

What Petri Net Obliges Us to Say: Comparing Approaches for Behavior Composition

What We Talk About When We Talk About Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About