Difference between revisions of "Publications/verna.12.dsl"
From LRDE
(Created page with "{{Publication | date = 2012-09-01 | authors = Didier Verna | title = Extensible languages: blurring the distinction between DSLs and GPLs | booktitle = Formal and Practical As...") |
|||
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Publication |
{{Publication |
||
| + | | published = true |
||
| date = 2012-09-01 |
| date = 2012-09-01 |
||
| authors = Didier Verna |
| authors = Didier Verna |
||
| Line 7: | Line 8: | ||
| editors = Marjan Mernik |
| editors = Marjan Mernik |
||
| chapter = 1 |
| chapter = 1 |
||
| + | | lrdeprojects = Climb |
||
| − | | project = Software |
||
| − | | urllrde = 201209-DSL |
||
| abstract = Out of a concern for focus and concision, domain-specific languages (DSLs) are usually very different from general purpose programming languages (GPLs), both at the syntactic and the semantic levels. One approach to DSL implementation is to write a full language infrastructure, including parser, interpreter or even compiler. Another approach however, is to ground the DSL into an extensible GPLgiving you control over its own syntax and semantics. The DSL may then be designed merely as an extension to the original GPL, and its implementation may boil down to expressing only the differences with it. The task of DSL implementation is hence considerably eased. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a tour of the features that make a GPL extensible, and to demonstrate how, in this contextthe distinction between DSL and GPL can blur, sometimes to the point of complete disappearance. |
| abstract = Out of a concern for focus and concision, domain-specific languages (DSLs) are usually very different from general purpose programming languages (GPLs), both at the syntactic and the semantic levels. One approach to DSL implementation is to write a full language infrastructure, including parser, interpreter or even compiler. Another approach however, is to ground the DSL into an extensible GPLgiving you control over its own syntax and semantics. The DSL may then be designed merely as an extension to the original GPL, and its implementation may boil down to expressing only the differences with it. The task of DSL implementation is hence considerably eased. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a tour of the features that make a GPL extensible, and to demonstrate how, in this contextthe distinction between DSL and GPL can blur, sometimes to the point of complete disappearance. |
||
| + | | lrdekeywords = Software engineering |
||
| type = incollection |
| type = incollection |
||
| id = verna.12.dsl |
| id = verna.12.dsl |
||
| + | | identifier = doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2092-6.ch001 |
||
| bibtex = |
| bibtex = |
||
@InCollection<nowiki>{</nowiki> verna.12.dsl, |
@InCollection<nowiki>{</nowiki> verna.12.dsl, |
||
| Line 21: | Line 23: | ||
publisher = <nowiki>{</nowiki><nowiki>{</nowiki>IGI<nowiki>}</nowiki> Global<nowiki>}</nowiki>, |
publisher = <nowiki>{</nowiki><nowiki>{</nowiki>IGI<nowiki>}</nowiki> Global<nowiki>}</nowiki>, |
||
editor = <nowiki>{</nowiki>Marjan Mernik<nowiki>}</nowiki>, |
editor = <nowiki>{</nowiki>Marjan Mernik<nowiki>}</nowiki>, |
||
| + | isbn = 9781466620926, |
||
| − | + | doi = <nowiki>{</nowiki>10.4018/978-1-4666-2092-6.ch001<nowiki>}</nowiki>, |
|
| + | year = 2012, |
||
month = sep, |
month = sep, |
||
chapter = 1, |
chapter = 1, |
||
| − | project = <nowiki>{</nowiki>Software<nowiki>}</nowiki>, |
||
abstract = <nowiki>{</nowiki>Out of a concern for focus and concision, domain-specific |
abstract = <nowiki>{</nowiki>Out of a concern for focus and concision, domain-specific |
||
languages (DSLs) are usually very different from general |
languages (DSLs) are usually very different from general |
||
Latest revision as of 16:51, 18 June 2019
- Authors
- Didier Verna
- Where
- Formal and Practical Aspects of Domain-Specific Languages: Recent Developments
- Type
- incollection
- Publisher
- IGI Global
- Projects
- Climb
- Keywords
- Software engineering
- Date
- 2012-09-01
Abstract
Out of a concern for focus and concision, domain-specific languages (DSLs) are usually very different from general purpose programming languages (GPLs), both at the syntactic and the semantic levels. One approach to DSL implementation is to write a full language infrastructure, including parser, interpreter or even compiler. Another approach however, is to ground the DSL into an extensible GPLgiving you control over its own syntax and semantics. The DSL may then be designed merely as an extension to the original GPL, and its implementation may boil down to expressing only the differences with it. The task of DSL implementation is hence considerably eased. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a tour of the features that make a GPL extensible, and to demonstrate how, in this contextthe distinction between DSL and GPL can blur, sometimes to the point of complete disappearance.
Bibtex (lrde.bib)
@InCollection{ verna.12.dsl,
author = {Didier Verna},
title = {Extensible languages: blurring the distinction between
{DSL}s and {GPL}s},
booktitle = {Formal and Practical Aspects of Domain-Specific Languages:
Recent Developments},
publisher = {{IGI} Global},
editor = {Marjan Mernik},
isbn = 9781466620926,
doi = {10.4018/978-1-4666-2092-6.ch001},
year = 2012,
month = sep,
chapter = 1,
abstract = {Out of a concern for focus and concision, domain-specific
languages (DSLs) are usually very different from general
purpose programming languages (GPLs), both at the syntactic
and the semantic levels. One approach to DSL implementation
is to write a full language infrastructure, including
parser, interpreter or even compiler. Another approach
however, is to ground the DSL into an extensible GPL,
giving you control over its own syntax and semantics. The
DSL may then be designed merely as an \emph{extension} to
the original GPL, and its implementation may boil down to
expressing only the differences with it. The task of DSL
implementation is hence considerably eased. The purpose of
this chapter is to provide a tour of the features that make
a GPL extensible, and to demonstrate how, in this context,
the distinction between DSL and GPL can blur, sometimes to
the point of complete disappearance.}
}