UDC 004.416 ALMA versus DDD

Abstract. To be a debugger is a good thing! Since the very beginning of the programming activity, debuggers are the most important and widely used tools after editors and compilers; we completely recognize their importance for software development and testing. Debuggers work at machine level, after the compilation of the source program; they deal with assembly, or binary-code, and are mainly data structure inspectors. Alma is a program animator based on its abstract representation. The main idea is to show the algorithm being implemented by the program, independently from the language used to implement it. To say that ALMA is a debugger, with no value added, is not true! ALMA is a source code inspector but it deals with programming concepts instead of machine code. This makes possible to understand the source program at a conceptual level, and not only to fix run time errors. In this paper we compare our visualizer/animator system, ALMA, with one of the most well-known and used debuggers, the graphical version of GDB, the DDD program. The aim of the paper is twofold: the immediate objective is to prove that ALMA provides new features that are not usually offered by debuggers; the main contribution is to recall the concepts of debugger and animator, and clarify the role of both tools in the field of program understanding, or program comprehension

UDC 004.43 Program Comprehension for Domain-Specific Languages *

Abstract. In the past, we have been looking for program comprehension tools that are able to interconnect operational and behavioral views, aiming at aiding the software analyst to relate problem and program domains in order to reach a full understanding of software systems. In this paper we are concerned with Program Comprehension issues applied to Domain Specific Languages (DSLs). We are now willing to understand how techniques and tools for the comprehension of traditional programming languages fit in the understanding of DSLs. Being the language tailored for the description of problems in a specific domain, we believe that specific visualizations (at a higher abstraction level, closer to the problem level) could and should be defined to enhance the comprehension of the descriptions in that particular domain

Comparing Generators for Language-based Tools

Abstract. The first step in any language development project is the Compiler Generator choice. Nowadays there are many offers, based on translation grammars, attribute grammars or other language specification formalisms. To make up a decision, more factors than just the tool user-friendliness and the processor’s quality should be taken into account. To aid the language developer, we analyze in this paper three Compiler Generators. The traditional and well known YACC, and two more recent ones, LISA and AnTLR-3. The first produces a Syntax-Directed Translator, while the others generate a Semantic-Directed Translator based on attribute evaluation. Moreover both the AG-based generators also produce other Language-based Tools that are mentioned and compared.

UDC 004.439, DOI: 10.2298/CSIS1002265O VisualLISA: A Visual Environment to Develop Attribute Grammars

Abstract. The focus of this paper is on crafting a new visual language for attribute grammars (AGs), and on the development of the associated programming environment. We present a solution for rapid development of VisualLISA editor using DEViL. DEViL uses traditional attribute grammars, to specify the language’s syntax and semantics, extended by visual representations to be associated with grammar symbols. From these specifications a visual programming environment is automatically generated. In our case, the environment allows us to edit a visual description of an AG that is automatically translated into textual notations, including an XML-based representation for attribute grammars (X AGra), and is intended to be helpful for beginners and rapid development of small AGs. X AGra allows us to use VisualLISA with other compiler-compiler tools

UDC 004.438, DOI: 10.2298/CSIS1002247K Comparing General-Purpose and Domain-Specific Languages: An Empirical Study

Abstract. Many domain-specific languages, that try to bring feasible alternatives for existing solutions while simplifying programming work, have come up in recent years. Although, these little languages seem to be easy to use, there is an open issue whether they bring advantages in comparison to the application libraries, which are the most commonly used implementation approach. In this work, we present an experiment, which was carried out to compare such a domain-specific language with a comparable application library. The experiment was conducted with 36 programmers, who have answered a questionnaire on both implementation approaches. The questionnaire is more than 100 pages long. For a domain-specific language and the application library, the same problem domain has been used – construction of graphical user interfaces. In terms of a domain-specific language, XAML has been used and C # Forms for the application library. A cognitive dimension framework has been used for a comparison between XAML and C# Forms

Automatic Generation of Language-based Tools Using the LISA System

Many tools have been constructed using di#erent formal methods to process various parts of a language specification (e.g., scanner generators, parser generators and compiler generators). The automatic generation of a complete compiler was the primary goal of such systems, but researchers recognized the possibility that many other language-based tools could be generated from formal language specifications. Such tools can be generated automatically whenever they can be described by a generic fixed part that traverses the appropriate data structures generated by a specific variable part, which can be systematically derivable from the language specifications. This paper identifies generic and specific parts for various language-based tools. Several language-based tools are presented in the paper, which are automatically generated using an attribute grammar-based compiler generator called LISA. The generated tools that are described in the paper include editors, inspectors, debuggers and visualizers/animators. Because of their complexity of construction, special emphasis is given to visualizers/animators, and the unique contribution of our approach toward generating such tools