article

When and how to develop domain-specific languages

Authors:

Marjan Mernik,

Jan Heering,

Anthony M. SloaneAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), Volume 37, Issue 4

Pages 316 - 344

https://doi.org/10.1145/1118890.1118892

Published: 01 December 2005 Publication History

Get Access

Abstract

Domain-specific languages (DSLs) are languages tailored to a specific application domain. They offer substantial gains in expressiveness and ease of use compared with general-purpose programming languages in their domain of application. DSL development is hard, requiring both domain knowledge and language development expertise. Few people have both. Not surprisingly, the decision to develop a DSL is often postponed indefinitely, if considered at all, and most DSLs never get beyond the application library stage.Although many articles have been written on the development of particular DSLs, there is very limited literature on DSL development methodologies and many questions remain regarding when and how to develop a DSL. To aid the DSL developer, we identify patterns in the decision, analysis, design, and implementation phases of DSL development. Our patterns improve and extend earlier work on DSL design patterns. We also discuss domain analysis tools and language development systems that may help to speed up DSL development. Finally, we present a number of open problems.

References

[1]

Anlauff, M., Kutter, P. W., and Pierantonio, A. 1999. Tool support for language design and prototyping with Montages. In Compiler Construction (CC'99), S. Jähnichen, Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1575. Springer-Verlag, 296--299.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[2]

Antoniotti, M. and Göllü, A. 1997. SHIFT and SMART-AHS: A language for hybrid system engineering modeling and simulation. In Proceedings of the USENIX Conference on Domain-Specific Languages, 171--182.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[3]

Atkins, D., Ball, T., Bruns, G., and Cox, K. 1999. Mawl: A domain-specific language for form-based services. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25, 3 (May/June), 334--346.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[4]

Attali, I., Courbis, C., Degenne, P., Fau, A., Parigot, D., and Pasquier, C. 2001. SmartTools: A generator of interactive environments tools. In Compiler Construction: 10th International Conference (CC'01), R. Wilhelm, Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2027. Springer-Verlag, 355--360.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[5]

Aycock, J. 2002. The design and implementation of SPARK, a toolkit for implementing domain-specific languages. J. Comput. Inform. Tech. 10, 1, 55--66.]]

Google Scholar

[6]

Backus, J. W. 1960. The syntax and semantics of the proposed International Algebraic Language of the Zurich ACM-GAMM conference. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Processing, UNESCO, Paris, 1959. Oldenbourg, Munich and Butterworth, London, 125--132.]]

Google Scholar

[7]

Badros, G. 2000. JavaML: A markup language for Java source code. In Proceedings of the 9th International World Wide Web Conference. http://www9.org/w9cdrom/start.html.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[8]

Bagge, O. S. and Haveraaen, M. 2003. Domain-specific optimisation with user-defined rules in CodeBoost. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Rule-Based Programming (RULE'03), J.-L. Giavitto and P.-E. Moreau, Eds. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 86(2). Elsevier. http://www.sciencedirect.com/.]]

Google Scholar

[9]

Barron, D. W. 2000. The World of Scripting Languages. John Wiley.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[10]

Batory, D., Lofaso, B., and Smaragdakis, Y. 1998. JTS: Tools for implementing domain-specific languages. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Reuse (JCSR'98), P. Devanbu and J. Poulin, Eds. IEEE Computer Society, 143--153.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[11]

Batory, D., Thomas, J., and Sirkin, M. 1994. Reengineering a complex application using a scalable data structure compiler. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 111--120.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[12]

Baxter, I. D., Pidgeon, C., and Mehlich, M. 2004. DMS: Program transformation for practical scalable software evolution. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'04). IEEE Computer Society, 625--634.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[13]

Bennett, K. H. and Rajlich, V. T. 2000. Software maintenance and evolution: A roadmap. In The Future of Software Engineering, A. Finkelstein, Ed. ACM Press, 73--87.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[14]

Bentley, J. L. 1986. Programming pearls: Little languages. Comm. ACM 29, 8 (August), 711--721.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[15]

Bergin, T. J. and Gibson, R. G., Eds. 1996. History of Programming Languages II. ACM Press.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[16]

Bertrand, F. and Augeraud, M. 1999. BDL: A specialized language for per-object reactive control. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25, 3, 347--362.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[17]

Biggerstaff, T. J. 1998. A perspective of generative reuse. Annals Softw. Eng. 5, 169--226.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[18]

Biggerstaff, T. J. and Perlis, A. J., Eds. 1989. Software Reusability. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley. Vol. I: Concepts and Models, Vol. II: Applications and Experience.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[19]

Bonachea, D., Fisher, K., Rogers, A., and Smith, F. 1999. Hancock: A language for processing very large-scale data. In Proceedings of the 2nd USENIX Conference on Domain-Specific Languages, 163--176.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[20]

Bosch, J. and Dittrich, Y. Domain-specific languages for a changing world. http://www.cs.rug.nl/bosch/articles.html.]]

Google Scholar

[21]

Braband, C. and Schwartzbach, M. 2002. Growing languages with metamorphic syntax macros. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 37, 3 (March), 31--40.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[22]

Braband, C., Schwartzbach, M. I., and Vanggaard, M. 2003. The metafront system: Extensible parsing and transformation. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Language Descriptions, Tools, and Applications (LDTA'03), B. R. Bryant and J. Saraiva, Eds. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 82(3). Elsevier. http://www.sciencedirect.com/.]]

Google Scholar

[23]

Bravenboer, M. and Visser, E. 2004. Concrete syntax for objects: Domain-specific language embedding and assimilation without restrictions. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA'04), D. C. Schmidt, Ed. ACM, 365--383.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[24]

Brooks, Jr., F. P. 1996. Language design as design. In History of Programming Languages II. T. J. Bergin and R. C. Gibson Eds. ACM Press, 4--15.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[25]

Bruntink, M., van Deursen, A., and Tourwé, T. 2005. Isolating idiomatic crosscutting concerns. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM'05). IEEE Computer Society, 37--46.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[26]

Buffenbarger, J. and Gruell, K. 2001. A language for software subsystem composition. In IEEE Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[27]

Cardelli, L. and Davies, R. 1999. Service combinators for web computing. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25, 3 (May/June), 309--316.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[28]

Chandra, S., Richards, B., and Larus, J. R. 1999. Teapot: A domain-specific language for writing cache coherence protocols. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25, 3 (May/June), 317--333.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[29]

Chappell, D. 1996. Understanding ActiveX and OLE. Microsoft Press.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[30]

Chiba, S. 1995. A metaobject protocol for C++. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA'95). ACM, 285--299.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[31]

Cleaveland, J. C. 1988. Building application generators. IEEE Softw. 5, 4, 25--33.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[32]

Cleaveland, J. C. 2001. Program Generators Using Java and XML. Prentice-Hall.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[33]

Clements, J., Felleisen, M., Findler, R., Flatt, M., and Krishnamurthi, S. 2004. Fostering little languages. Dr. Dobb's J. 29, 3 (March), 16--24.]]

Google Scholar

[34]

Consel, C. and Marlet, R. 1998. Architecturing software using a methodology for language development. In Principles of Declarative Programming (PLILP'98/ALP'98), C. Palamidessi, H. Glaser, and K. Meinke, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1490. Springer-Verlag, 170--194.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[35]

Coplien, J., Hoffman, D., and Weiss, D. 1998. Commonality and variability in software engineering. IEEE Softw. 15, 6, 37--45.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[36]

Cordy, J. R. 2004. TXL---A language for programming language tools and applications. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Language Descriptions, Tools, and Applications (LDTA'04), G. Hedin and E. van Wyk, Eds. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 110. Elsevier, 3--31. http://www.sciencedirect.com/.]]

Google Scholar

[37]

Courbis, C. and Finkelstein, A. 2004. Towards an aspect weaving BPEL engine. In Proceedings of the 3rd AOSD Workshop on Aspects, Components, and Patterns for Infrastructure Software (ACP4IS), Y. Coady and D. H. Lorenz, Eds. Tech. rep. NU-CCIS-04-04, College of Computer and Information Science, Northeastern University, Boston, MA.]]

Google Scholar

[38]

Črepinšek, M., Mernik, M., Javed, F., Bryant, B. R., and Sprague, A. 2005. Extracting grammar from programs: evolutionary approach. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 40, 4 (April), 39--46.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[39]

Crespi-Reghizzi, S., Melkanoff, M. A., and Lichten, L. 1973. The use of grammatical inference for designing programming languages. Comm. ACM 16, 83--90.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[40]

Crew, R. F. 1997. ASTLOG: A language for examining abstract syntax trees. In Proceedings of the USENIX Conference on Domain-Specific Languages, 229--242.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[41]

Czarnecki, K. and Eisenecker, U. 2000. Generative Programming: Methods, Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[42]

de Jonge, M. 2002. Source tree composition. In Software Reuse: Methods, Techniques, and Tools: 7th International Conference (ICSR-7), C. Gacek, Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2319. Springer-Verlag, 17--32.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[43]

Dean, M., Schreiber, G., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D. L., Patel-Schneider, P. F., and Stein, L. A. 2003. OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. Working draft, W3C (March). http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-ref-20030331/.]]

Google Scholar

[44]

Denny, M. 2003. Ontology building: A survey of editing tools. Tech. rep., XML.com. http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/2002/11/06/ontologies.html.]]

Google Scholar

[45]

Elliott, C. 1999. An embedded modeling language approach to interactive 3D and multimedia animation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25, 3 (May/June), 291--308.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[46]

Faith, R. E., Nyland, L. S., and Prins, J. F. 1997. Khepera: A system for rapid implementation of domain specific languages. In Proceedings of the USENIX Conference on Domain-Specific Languages, 243--255.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[47]

Falbo, R. A., Guizzardi, G., and Duarte, K. C. 2002. An ontological approach to domain engineering. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE'02). ACM, 351--358.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[48]

Felleisen, M., Findler, R., Flatt, M., and Krishnamurthi, S. 2004. Building little languages with macros. Dr. Dobb's J. 29, 4 (April), 45--49.]]

Google Scholar

[49]

Fertalj, K., Kalpič, D., and Mornar, V. 2002. Source code generator based on a proprietary specification language. In Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[50]

Frakes, W. 1998. Panel: Linking domain analysis with domain implementation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Reuse. IEEE Computer Society, 348--349.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[51]

Frakes, W., Prieto-Diaz, R., and Fox, C. 1998. DARE: Domain analysis and reuse environment. Annals of Software Engineering 5, 125--141.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[52]

Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., and Vlissides, J. 1995. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[53]

Germon, R. 2001. Using XML as an intermediate form for compiler development. In XML Conference Proceedings. http://www.idealliance.org/papers/xml2001/index.html.]]

Google Scholar

[54]

Gil, J. and Tsoglin, Y. 2001. JAMOOS---A domain-specific language for language processing. J. Comput. Inform. Tech. 9, 4, 305--321.]]

Google Scholar

[55]

Gilmore, S. and Ryan, M., Eds. 2001. Language Constructs for Describing Features---Proceedings of the FIREworks Workshop. Springer-Verlag.]]

Google Scholar

[56]

Glässer, U., Gurevich, Y., and Veanes, M. 2002. An abstract communication model. Tech. rep. MSR-TR-2002-55. Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA.]]

Google Scholar

[57]

Gondow, K. and Kawashima, H. 2002. Towards ANSI C program slicing using XML. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Language Descriptions, Tools, and Applications (LDTA'02), M. G. J. van den Brand and R. Lämmel, Eds. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 65(3). Elsevier. http://www.sciencedirect.com/.]]

Google Scholar

[58]

Gough, J. 2002. Compiling for the .NET Common Language Runtime (CLR). Prentice Hall.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[59]

Granicz, A. and Hickey, J. 2003. Phobos: Extending compilers with executable language definitions. In Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.]]

Google Scholar

[60]

Gray, J. and Karsai, G. 2003. An examination of DSLs for concisely representing model traversals and transformations. In Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[61]

Gray, R. W., Levi, S. P., Heuring, V. P., Sloane, A. M., and Waite, W. M. 1992. Eli: A complete, flexible compiler construction system. Comm. ACM 35, 2 (Feb.), 121--130.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[62]

Greenfield, J., Short, K., Cook, S., Kent, S., and Crupi, J. 2004. Software Factories: Assembling Applications with Patterns, Models, Frameworks, and Tools. John Wiley.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[63]

Guyer, S. Z. and Lin, C. 1999. An annotation language for optimizing software libraries. In Proceedings of the 2nd USENIX Conference on Domain-Specific Languages, 39--52.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[64]

Guyer, S. Z. and Lin, C. 2005. Broadway: A compiler for exploiting the domain-specific semantics of software libraries. In Proceedings of IEEE, 93, 2, 342--357.]]

Google Scholar

[65]

Heering, J. and Klint, P. 2000. Semantics of programming languages: A tool-oriented approach. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 35, 3 (March) 39--48.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[66]

Herndon, R. M. and Berzins, V. A. 1988. The realizable benefits of a language prototyping language. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 14, 803--809.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[67]

HICSS 2001. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'34). IEEE.]]

Google Scholar

[68]

HICSS 2002. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'35). IEEE.]]

Google Scholar

[69]

HICSS 2003. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'36). IEEE.]]

Google Scholar

[70]

Hudak, P. 1996. Building domain-specific embedded languages. ACM Comput. Surv. 28, 4 (Dec).]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[71]

Hudak, P. 1998. Modular domain specific languages and tools. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Reuse (JCSR'98), P. Devanbu and J. Poulin, Eds. IEEE Computer Society, 134--142.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[72]

Jennings, J. and Beuscher, E. 1999. Verischemelog: Verilog embedded in Scheme. In Proceedings of the 2nd USENIX Conference on Domain-Specific Languages. 123--134.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[73]

Jones, C. 1996. SPR Programming Languages Table Release 8.2, http://www.theadvisors.com/langcomparison.htm. (Accessed April 2005). Later release not available at publication.]]

Google Scholar

[74]

Jones, N. D., Gomard, C. K., and Sestoft, P. 1993. Partial Evaluation and Automatic Program Generation. Prentice Hall.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[75]

Kadhim, B. M. and Waite, W. M. 1996. Maptool---Supporting modular syntax development. In Compiler Construction (CC'96), T. Gyimóthy, Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1060. Springer-Verlag, 268--280.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[76]

Kamin, S., Ed. 1997. DSL'97---1st ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Domain-Specific Languages in Association with POPL'97. University of Illinois Computer Science Report.]]

Google Scholar

[77]

Kamin, S. 1998. Research on domain-specific embedded languages and program generators. Electro. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 14. http://www.sciencedirect.com/.]]

Google Scholar

[78]

Kamin, S. and Hyatt, D. 1997. A special-purpose language for picture-drawing. In Proceedings of the USENIX Conference on Domain-Specific Languages, 297--310.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[79]

Kang, K. C., Cohen, S. G., Hess, J. A., Novak, W. E., and Peterson, A. S. 1990. Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Tech. rep. CMU/SEI-90-TR-21. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.]]

Google Scholar

[80]

Kastens, U. and Pfahler, P. 1998. Compositional design and implementation of domain-specific languages. In IFIP TC2 WG 2.4 Working Conference on System Implementation 2000: Languages, Methods and Tools, R. N. Horspool, Ed. Chapman and Hall, 152--165.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[81]

Kiczales, G., des Rivieres, J., and Bobrow, D. G. 1991. The Art of the Metaobject Protocol. MIT Press.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[82]

Kieburtz, R. B., McKinney, L., Bell, J. M., Hook, J., Kotov, A., Lewis, J., Oliva, D. P., Sheard, T., Smith, I., and Walton, L. 1996. A software engineering experiment in software component generation. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'96). IEEE, 542--552.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[83]

Kienle, H. M. and Moore, D. L. 2002. smgn: Rapid prototyping of small domain-specific languages. J. Comput. Inform. Tech. 10, 1, 37--53.]]

Google Scholar

[84]

Klarlund, N. and Schwartzbach, M. 1999. A domain-specific language for regular sets of strings and trees. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25, 3 (May/June), 378--386.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[85]

Krueger, C. W. 1992. Software reuse. ACM Computing Surveys 24, 2 (June), 131--183.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[86]

Kuck, D. J. 2005. Platform 2015 software: Enabling innovation in parallelism for the next decade. Technology&commat;Intel Magazine. http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/computing/Parallelism-0405.htm.]]

Google Scholar

[87]

Kumar, S., Mandelbaum, Y., Yu, X., and Li, K. 2001. ESP: A language for programmable devices. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI'01). ACM, 309--320.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[88]

Kutter, P. W., Schweizer, D., and Thiele, L. 1998. Integrating domain specific language design in the software life cycle. In Applied Formal Methods---FM-Trends 98, D. Hutter et al., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1641. Springer-Verlag, 196--212.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[89]

Launchbury, J., Lewis, J. R., and Cook, B. 1999. On embedding a microarchitectural design language within Haskell. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 34, 9 (Sept.), 60--69.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[90]

Lengauer, C., Batory, D., Consel, C., and Odersky, M., Eds. 2004. Domain-Specific Program Generation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3016. Springer-Verlag.]]

Google Scholar

[91]

Levy, M. R. 1998. Web programming in Guide. Softw. Pract. Exper. 28, 1581--1603.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[92]

Martin, J. 1985. Fourth-Generation Languages. Vol. I: Principles, Vol II: Representative 4GLs. Prentice-Hall.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[93]

Mauw, S., Wiersma, W., and Willemse, T. 2004. Language-driven system design. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 14, 1--39.]]

Google Scholar

[94]

Mernik, M. and Lämmel, R. 2001. Special issue on domain-specific languages, Part I. J. Comput. Inform. Techn. 9, 4.]]

Google Scholar

[95]

Mernik, M. and Lämmel, R. 2002. Special issue on domain-specific languages, Part II. J. Comput. Inform. Techn. 10, 1.]]

Google Scholar

[96]

Mernik, M., Lenič, M., Avdičaušević, E., and Žumer, V. 2000. Multiple attribute grammar inheritance. Informatica 24, 3 (Sept.), 319--328.]]

Google Scholar

[97]

Mernik, M., Novak, U., Avdičaušević, E., Lenič, M., and Žumer, V. 2001. Design and implementation of simple object description language. In Proceedings of the 2001 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC'01). ACM, 590--594.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[98]

Mernik, M., Žumer, V., Lenič, M., and Avdičaušević, E. 1999. Implementation of multiple attribute grammar inheritance in the tool LISA. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 34, 6 (June), 68--75.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[99]

Moura, J. M. F., Püschel, M., Padua, D., and Dongarra, J. 2005. Special issue on program generation, optimization, and platform adaptation. Proceedings of the IEEE 93, 2.]]

Google Scholar

[100]

Nakatani, L. and Jones, M. 1997. Jargons and infocentrism. 1st Acm SIGPLAN Workshop on Domain-Specific Languages. 59--74. http://www-sal.cs.uiuc.edu/kamin/dsl/papers/nakatani.ps.]]

Google Scholar

[101]

Nardi, B. A. 1993. A Small Matter of Programming: Perspectives on End User Computing. MIT Press.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[102]

Neighbors, J. M. 1984. The Draco approach to constructing software from reusable components. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-10, 5 (Sept.), 564--574.]]

Google Scholar

[103]

Parigot, D. 2004. Towards domain-driven development: The SmartTools software factory. In Companion to the 19th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications. ACM, 37--38.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[104]

Peyton Jones, S., Tolmach, A., and Hoare, T. 2001. Playing by the rules: Rewriting as a practical optimisation technique in GHC. In Proceedings of the Haskell Workshop.]]

Google Scholar

[105]

Pfahler, P. and Kastens, U. 2001. Configuring component-based specifications for domain-specific languages. In Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[106]

Raymond, E. S. 2001. The CML2 language: Python implementation of a constraint-based interactive configurator. In Proceeding of the 9th International Python Conference. 135--142. http://www.catb.org/esr/cml2/cml2-paper.html.]]

Google Scholar

[107]

Risi, W., Martinez-Lopez, P., and Marcos, D. 2001. Hycom: A domain specific language for hypermedia application development. In Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[108]

Ross, D. T. 1981. Origins of the APT language for automatically programmed tools. History of Programming Languages, R. L. Wexelblat Ed. Academic Press. 279--338.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[109]

Salus, P. H., Ed. 1998. Little Languages. Handbook of Programming Languages, vol. III. MacMillan.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[110]

Sammet, J. E. 1969. Programming Languages: History and Fundamentals. Prentice-Hall.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[111]

Saraiva, J. and Schneider, S. 2003. Embedding domain specific languages in the attribute grammar formalism. In Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[112]

Schnarr, E., Hill, M. D., and Larus, J. R. 2001. Facile: A language and compiler for high-performance processor simulators. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI'01). ACM, 321--331.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[113]

Schneider, K. A. and Cordy, J. R. 2002. AUI: A programming language for developing plastic interactive software. In Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[114]

Schupp, S., Gregor, D. P., Musser, D. R., and Liu, S. 2001. User-extensible simplification---Type-based optimizer generators. In Compiler Construction (CC'01), R. Wilhelm, Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2027. Springer-Verlag, 86--101.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[115]

SDL Forum. 2000. MSC-2000: Interaction for the new millenium. http://www.sdl-forum.org/MSC2000present/index.htm.]]

Google Scholar

[116]

Simos, M. and Anthony, J. 1998. Weaving the model web: A multi-modeling approach to concepts and features in domain engineering. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Reuse. IEEE Computer Society, 94--102.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[117]

Sirer, E. G. and Bershad, B. N. 1999. Using production grammars in software testing. In Proceedings of the 2nd USENIX Conference on Domain-Specific Languages. 1--14.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[118]

Sloane, A. M. 2002. Post-design domain-specific language embedding: A case study in the software engineering domain. In Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[119]

Slonneger, K. and Kurtz, B. L. 1995. Formal Syntax and Semantics of Programming Languages: A Laboratory Based Approach. Addison-Wesley.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[120]

Smaragdakis, Y. and Batory, D. 1997. DiSTiL: A transformation library for data structures. In Proceedings of the USENIX Conference on Domain-Specific Languages. 257--270.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[121]

Smaragdakis, Y. and Batory, D. 2000. Application generators. In Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering Online, J. Webster, Ed. John Wiley.]]

Google Scholar

[122]

Soroker, D., Karasick, M., Barton, J., and Streeter, D. 1997. Extension mechanisms in Montana. In Proceedings of the 8th Israeli Conference on Computer-Based Systems and Software Engineering (ICCSSE'97). IEEE Computer Society, 119--128.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[123]

Spinellis, D. 2001. Notable design patterns for domain-specific languages. J. Syst. Softw. 56, 91--99.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[124]

Sutcliffe, A. and Mehandjiev, N. 2004. Special issue on End-User Development. Comm. ACM 47, 9.]]

Google Scholar

[125]

Szyperski, C. 2002. Component Software---Beyond Object-Oriented Programming, 2nd Ed. Addison-Wesley/ACM Press.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[126]

Taylor, R. N., Tracz, W., and Coglianese, L. 1995. Software development using domain-specific software architectures. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 20, 5, 27--37.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[127]

Tennent, R. D. 1977. Language design methods based on semantic principles. Acta Inf. 8, 97--112.]]

Google Scholar

[128]

Thatte, S. 2001. XLANG: Web services for business process design. Tech. rep. Microsoft. http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/xml_wsspecs/xlang-c/.]]

Google Scholar

[129]

Thibault, S. A. 1998. Domain-specific languages: Conception, implementation and application. Ph.D. thesis, University of Rennes.]]

Google Scholar

[130]

Thibault, S. A., Consel, C., and Muller, G. 1998. Safe and efficient active network programming. In Proceedings of the 17th IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems. IEEE Computer Society, 135--143.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[131]

Thibault, S. A., Marlet, R., and Consel, C. 1999. Domain-specific languages: From design to implementation---Application to video device drivers generation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25, 3, (May/June), 363--377.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[132]

Tracz, W. and Coglianese, L. 1995. DOMAIN (DOmain Model All INtegrated)---a DSSA domain analysis tool. Tech. rep. ADAGE-LOR-94-11. Loral Federal Systems.]]

Google Scholar

[133]

UPnP 2003. Universal Plug and Play Forum. http://www.upnp.org/.]]

Google Scholar

[134]

USENIX 1997. Proceedings of the USENIX Conference on Domain-Specific Languages.]]

Google Scholar

[135]

USENIX 1999. Proceedings of the 2nd USENIX Conference on Domain-Specific Languages (DSL'99).]]

Google Scholar

[136]

van den Brand, M. G. J., van Deursen, A., Heering, J., de Jong, H. A., de Jonge, M., Kuipers, T., Klint, P., Moonen, L., Oliver, P. A., Scheerder, J., Vinju, J. J., Visser, E., and Visser, J. 2001. The ASF+SDF Meta-Environment: A component-based language development environment. In Compiler Construction (CC'01), R. Wilhelm, Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2027. Springer-Verlag, 365--370. http://www.cwi.nl/projects/MetaEnv.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[137]

van den Brand, M. G. J. and Visser, E. 1996. Generation of formatters for context-free languages. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Method. 5, 1--41.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[138]

van Deursen, A. and Klint, P. 1998. Little languages: Little maintenance? J. Softw. Maintenance 10, 75--92.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[139]

van Deursen, A. and Klint, P. 2002. Domain-specific language design requires feature descriptions. J. Comput. Inform. Tech. 10, 1, 1--17.]]

Google Scholar

[140]

van Deursen, A., Klint, P., and Visser, J. 2000. Domain-specific languages: An annotated bibliography. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 35, 6 (June), 26--36.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[141]

van Engelen, R. 2001. ATMOL: A domain-specific language for atmospheric modeling. J. Comput. Inform. Techn. 9, 4, 289--303.]]

Google Scholar

[142]

Veldhuizen, T. L. 1995a. Expression templates. C++ Report 7, 5 (June) 26--31.]]

Google Scholar

[143]

Veldhuizen, T. L. 1995b. Using C++ template metaprograms. C++ Report 7, 4 (May) 36--43.]]

Google Scholar

[144]

Veldhuizen, T. L. 2001. Blitz++ User's Guide. Version 1.2 http://www.oonumerics.org/blitz/manual/blitz.ps.]]

Google Scholar

[145]

Visser, E. 2003. Stratego---Strategies for program transformation. http://www.stratego-language.org.]]

Google Scholar

[146]

Wang, D. C., Appel, A. W., Korn, J. L., and Serra, C. S. 1997. The Zephyr abstract syntax description language. In Proceedings of the USENIX Conference on Domain-Specific Languages, 213--28.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[147]

Weiss, D. and Lay, C. T. R. 1999. Software Product Line Engineering. Addison-Wesley.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[148]

Wexelblat, R. L., Ed. 1981. History of Programming Languages. Academic Press.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[149]

Wile, D. S. 1993. POPART: Producer of Parsers and Related Tools. USC/Information Sciences Institute. http://mr.teknowledge.com/wile/popart.html.]]

Google Scholar

[150]

Wile, D. S. 2001. Supporting the DSL spectrum. J. Comput. Inform. Techn. 9, 4, 263--287.]]

Google Scholar

[151]

Wile, D. S. 2004. Lessons learned from real DSL experiments. Sci. Comput. Program. 51, 265--290.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

[152]

Wile, D. S. and Ramming, J. C. 1999. Special issue on Domain-Specific Languages. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-25, 3 (May/June).]]

Google Scholar

[153]

Xiong, J., Johnson, J., Johnson, R. W., and Padua, D. A. 2001. SPL: A language and compiler for DSP algorithms. In Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI'01). ACM, 298--308.]]

Crossref

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Popović AIvković VTrajković NLuković I(2024)A domain-specific language for managing ETL processesPeerJ Computer Science10.7717/peerj-cs.183510(e1835)Online publication date: 26-Jan-2024
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.1835
Zhao WWendt KZiemssen TAßmann U(2024)Rule-Based DSL for Continuous Features and ML Models Selection in Multiple Sclerosis ResearchApplied Sciences10.3390/app1414619314:14(6193)Online publication date: 16-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146193
Steingartner WNovitzká V(2024)Operational semantics in a domain-specific robot control language: A pedagogical use caseComputer Science and Information Systems10.2298/CSIS230709028S21:3(1077-1095)Online publication date: 2024
https://doi.org/10.2298/CSIS230709028S
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

When and how to develop domain-specific languages
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software notations and tools
    1. Context specific languages
      1. Specialized application languages

Recommendations

Everything old is new again: quoted domain-specific languages
PEPM '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Partial Evaluation and Program Manipulation

We describe a new approach to implementing Domain-Specific Languages(DSLs), called Quoted DSLs (QDSLs), that is inspired by two old ideas:quasi-quotation, from McCarthy's Lisp of 1960, and the subformula principle of normal proofs, from Gentzen's ...
Testing domain-specific languages
OOPSLA '11: Proceedings of the ACM international conference companion on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications companion

The Spoofax testing language provides a new approach to testing domain-specific languages as they are developed. It allows test cases to be written using fragments of the language under test, providing full IDE support for writing test cases and ...
Declaratively defining domain-specific language debuggers
GCPE '11

Tool support is vital to the effectiveness of domain-specific languages. With language workbenches, domain-specific languages and their tool support can be generated from a combined, high-level specification. This paper shows how such a specification ...

Reviews

Reviewer: Holger Giese

Are you planning to decide whether your information technology strategy will put domain-specific languages (DSLs) or unified modeling language (UML) at its core__?__ Is your business or research affected by the current DSL hype__?__ Then take a break and read this wonderful paper. Rather than trying to predict the future (at which we usually fail terribly), this paper provides a thorough analysis of the past. The analysis of existing examples for DSLs is condensed into a number of patterns that cover the when and how for the development of a DSL. The patterns support the decision, analysis, design, implementation, and deployment steps during the development of a DSL. For each pattern, examples are presented that demonstrate the relevance of the pattern. The paper also has a?probably deliberately left open?deficiency: it restricts itself to a programming language view of the world and does not even make an attempt to cover or discuss modeling languages or model-driven development. However, the paper shows its real value in being applicable to the former DSL or UML question. There is a pattern for DSL design suggesting language exploitation that could include piggybacking, specialization, or extension, and a pattern proposing language invention. The question is not DSL or UML, but when to apply which pattern for DSL design. You have to evaluate for each specific case whether UML profiling, with its specialization and extension mechanisms, or language invention is more appropriate. Online Computing Reviews Service

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

ACM Computing Surveys Volume 37, Issue 4

December 2005

111 pages

ISSN:0360-0300

EISSN:1557-7341

DOI:10.1145/1118890

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 December 2005

Published in CSUR Volume 37, Issue 4

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

1,164
Total Citations
View Citations
14,919
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)646
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)75

Reflects downloads up to 16 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Popović AIvković VTrajković NLuković I(2024)A domain-specific language for managing ETL processesPeerJ Computer Science10.7717/peerj-cs.183510(e1835)Online publication date: 26-Jan-2024
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.1835
Zhao WWendt KZiemssen TAßmann U(2024)Rule-Based DSL for Continuous Features and ML Models Selection in Multiple Sclerosis ResearchApplied Sciences10.3390/app1414619314:14(6193)Online publication date: 16-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146193
Steingartner WNovitzká V(2024)Operational semantics in a domain-specific robot control language: A pedagogical use caseComputer Science and Information Systems10.2298/CSIS230709028S21:3(1077-1095)Online publication date: 2024
https://doi.org/10.2298/CSIS230709028S
KALECİK MTUĞLULAR TBELLİ F(2024)Olay Sıra Çizgeleri için Alana Özgü Bir DilA Domain Specific Language for Event Sequence GraphsDeu Muhendislik Fakultesi Fen ve Muhendislik10.21205/deufmd.202426760726:76(49-58)Online publication date: 23-Jan-2024
https://doi.org/10.21205/deufmd.2024267607
Guan ZCao YYu TWang ZWang DHu Z(2024)Semantics Lifting for Syntactic SugarProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36897588:OOPSLA2(1336-1361)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689758
Gerasimov AJansen NMichael JRumpe BChiba SThüm T(2024)Applying a Self-Extension Mechanism to DSLs for Establishing Model LibrariesProceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Generative Programming: Concepts and Experiences10.1145/3689484.3690732(29-43)Online publication date: 21-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689484.3690732
Lee YGopinathan KYang ZFlatt MSergey ILaemmel RPereira JMosses P(2024)DSLs in Racket: You Want It How, Now?Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineering10.1145/3687997.3695645(84-103)Online publication date: 17-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3687997.3695645
Ballantyne MGamburg MHemann J(2024)Compiled, Extensible, Multi-language DSLs (Functional Pearl)Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36746278:ICFP(64-87)Online publication date: 15-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3674627
Vaudey JMocanu SDelaval GRutten E(2024)An IEC 62443-security oriented domain specific modelling languageProceedings of the 19th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security10.1145/3664476.3670938(1-10)Online publication date: 30-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3664476.3670938
Cortiñas ALamas VR. Luaces M(2024)SensorPublisher: Applying Software Product Lines to the development of IoT dashboardsProceedings of the 28th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference10.1145/3646548.3672582(153-163)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3646548.3672582
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Everything old is new again: quoted domain-specific languages

Testing domain-specific languages

Declaratively defining domain-specific language debuggers

Reviews

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Comments

Published In

Publisher

Publication History

Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Other Metrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Cited By

Login options

Full Access

PDF

eReader

Abstract

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Everything old is new again: quoted domain-specific languages

Testing domain-specific languages

Declaratively defining domain-specific language debuggers

Reviews

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Comments

Information

Published In

Publisher

Publication History

Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Get Access

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

eReader

Figures

Other

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media

Affiliations