Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Vasudevan, Naveneetha; Tratt, Laurence (2010)
Languages: English
Types: Unknown
An increasingly wide range of tools based on different approaches are being used to implement Domain Specific Languages (DSLs), yet there is little agreement as to which approach is, or approaches are, the most appropriate for any given problem. We believe this can in large part be explained by the lack of understanding within the DSL community. In this paper we aim to increase the understanding of the relative strengths and weaknesses of three approaches by implementing a common DSL case study. In addition, we present a comparative study of the three approaches.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [1] Bentley, J., Programming pearls: little languages, Communications of the ACM 29 (1986), 711-721.
    • [2] Czarnecki, K., J. O'Donnel, J. Striegnitz, and W. Taha, DSL Implementation in MetaOCaml, Template Haskell, and C++, Domain Specific Program Generation, LNCS 3016 (2004), 51-72.
    • [3] Deursen, Arie V., P. Klint, and J. Visser, Domain-Specific Languages: An Annotated Bibliography, ACM SIGPLAN Notices 35 (2000), 26-36.
    • [4] Flanagan, D., and Y. Matsumoto, The Ruby Programming Language, O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2008.
    • [5] Fleutot, F., and L. Tratt, Contrasting compile-time meta-programming in Metalua and Converge, 3rd Workshop on Dynamic Languages and Applications, 2007.
    • [6] Hudak, P., Modular Domain Specific Languages and Tools, ICSR '98: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Reuse 0 (1998), 134-142.
    • [7] Documentation on the Ruby programming language, URL: http://ruby-doc.org
    • [8] Skalaski, K., M. Moskal, and P. Olszta, Meta-programming in Nemerle, Technical report, 2004.
    • [9] Bravenboer, M., K. T. Kalleberg, and E. Visser, Stratego Manual, URL: http://releases.strategoxt.org/strategoxt-manual/unstable/manual/chunk-chapter/index.html
    • [10] Tratt, L., Domain Specific Language Implementation via Compile-Time Meta-Programming, ACM TOPLAS 30 (2008), 1-40.
    • [11] Van Wyk, E., D. Bodin, L. Krishnan, and J. Gao, Silver: an Extensible Attribute Grammar System, ENTCS 203 (2008), 103-116.
    • [12] Visser, E., Meta-Programming with Concrete Object Syntax, GPCE02 LNCS 2487 (2002), 299-315.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article