Program comprehension of domain-specific and general-purpose languages: Comparison using a family of experiments

Empirical Software Engineering

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 276-304

  Kosar, Tomaž ^a   Mernik, Marjan ^a   Carver, Jeffrey C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARIBOR   (Slovenia)

^b University of Alabama   (United States)

Author keywords

Controlled experiments; Domain specific languages; General purpose languages; Language evaluations; Program comprehension; Program understanding

Indexed keywords

CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT; DOMAIN SPECIFIC LANGUAGES; LANGUAGE EVALUATIONS; PROGRAM COMPREHENSION; PROGRAM UNDERSTANDING;

EXPERIMENTS; PROBLEM ORIENTED LANGUAGES;

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING;

EID: 84857361590     PISSN: 13823256     EISSN: 15737616     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10664-011-9172-x     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. V Basili F Shull F Lanubile 1999 Building knowledge through families of experiments IEEE Trans Softw Eng 25 4 456 473 10.1109/32.799939 (Pubitemid 129304112)
2. J Bentley 1986 Little languages Commun ACM 29 8 711 721 835044 10.1145/6424.315691
3. Carver J, Jaccheri L, Morasca S, Shull F (2003) Issues in using students in empirical studies in software engineering education. In: METRICS '03: proceedings of the 9th international symposium on software metrics. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, p 239
4. J Carver L Jaccheri S Morasca F Shull 2010 A checklist for integrating student empirical studies with research and teaching goals Empir Softw Eng 15 1 35 59 10.1007/s10664-009-9109-9
5. Consel C, Marlet R (1998) Architecturing software using a methodology for language development. In: Proceedings of the 10th international symposium on programming language implementation and logic programming, vol 1490, pp 170-194 (Pubitemid 128136306)
6. JA Cruz-Lemus M Genero ME Manso S Morasca M Piattini 2009 Assessing the understandability of UML statechart diagrams with composite states - A family of empirical studies Empir Softw Eng 14 6 685 719 10.1007/s10664-009-9106-z
7. Czarnecki K, Eisenecker U (2000) Generative programming: methods, tools and applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading
8. A van Deursen P Klint 1998 Little languages: little maintenance J Softw Maint 10 2 75 92 10.1002/(SICI)1096-908X(199803/04)10:2<75::AID-SMR168>3. 0.CO;2-5
9. A van Deursen P Klint 2002 Domain-specific language design requires feature descriptions J Comput Inf Technol 10 1 1 17 1019.68015 10.2498/cit.2002.01.01
10. A van Deursen P Klint J Visser 2000 Domain-specific languages: an annotated bibliography ACM SIGPLAN Not 35 6 26 36 10.1145/352029.352035
11. C Elliott 1999 An embedded modeling language approach to interactive 3D and multimedia animation IEEE Trans Softw Eng 25 3 291 309 10.1109/32.798320
12. Gansner ER, Koutsofios E, North S (2009) Drawing graphs with dot. Tech Rep AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, USA. http://www.graphviz.org/ pdf/dotguide.pdf
13. TRG Green M Petre 1996 Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a 'cognitive dimensions' framework J Vis Lang Comput 7 2 131 174 10.1006/jvlc.1996.0009 (Pubitemid 126167522)
14. Hevner AR, Linger RC, Webb Collins R, Pleszkoch M, Prowell S, Walton G (2005) The impact of function extraction technology on next-generation software engineering. Tech Rep CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
15. Hudak P (1998) Modular domain specific languages and tools. In: Proceedings: fifth international conference on software reuse. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, pp 134-142
16. A Jedlitschka M Ciolkowski D Pfahl 2008 Reporting experiments in software engineering F Shull J Singer DIK Sjæberg (eds) Guide to advanced empirical software engineering Springer London 201 228 10.1007/978-1-84800-044- 5-8 10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5-8
17. Jedlitschka A, Ciolkowski M, Pfahl D (2008) Reporting experiments in software engineering. In: Shull F, Singer J, Sjæberg DIK (eds) Guide to advanced empirical software engineering. Springer, London, pp 201-228. doi: 10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5-8
18. Kang K, Cohen S, Hess J, Novak W, Peterson S (1990) Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Tech Rep CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
19. Kieburtz RB, McKinney L, Bell JM, Hook J, Kotov A, Lewis J, Oliva DP, Sheard T, Smith I, Walton L (1996) A software engineering experiment in software component generation. In: ICSE-18: proceedings of the 18th international conference on software engineering. IEEE Computer Society, pp 542-553
20. T Kosar PE Martínez López PA Barrientos M Mernik 2008 A preliminary study on various implementation approaches of domain-specific language Inf Softw Technol 50 5 390 405 10.1016/j.infsof.2007.04.002 (Pubitemid 351200015)
21. Kosar T, Mernik M, Črepinšek M, Henriques PR, da Cruz D, Varanda Pereira MJ, Oliveira N (2009) Influence of domain-specific notation to program understanding. In: Proceedings of the international multiconference on computer science and information technology, WAPL 2009-2nd workshop on advances in programming languages, pp 675-682
22. T Kosar M Mernik M Črepinšek PR Henriques D da Cruz MJ Varanda Pereira N Oliveira 2010 Comparing general-purpose and domain-specific languages: an empirical study Comput Sci Inf Syst 7 2 247 264 10.2298/CSIS1002247K (Extended version of CORTA'09 paper: comparison of XAML and C# forms using cognitive dimension framework)
23. R Likert 1932 A technique for the measurement of attitudes Arch Psychol 22 140 1 55
24. MacVittie LA (2006) XAML in a nutshell. O'Reilly Media, Inc
25. S Mauw W Wiersma T Willemse 2004 Language-driven system design Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 6 14 625 664 10.1142/S0218194004001828 (Pubitemid 40168753)
26. Meijer E, Beckman B, Bierman G (2006) Linq: reconciling object, relations and xml in the.net framework. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 706-706 (Pubitemid 46946551)
27. M Mernik J Heering A Sloane 2005 When and how to develop domain-specific languages ACM Comput Surv 37 4 316 344 10.1145/1118890.1118892 (Pubitemid 43898543)
28. A Nugroho 2009 Level of detail in UML models and its impact on model comprehension: a controlled experiment Inf Softw Technol 51 12 1670 1685 10.1016/j.infsof.2009.04.007
29. MC Otero JJ Dolado 2004 Evaluation of the comprehension of the dynamic modeling in UML Inf Softw Technol 46 1 35 53 10.1016/S0950-5849(03)00108-3
30. Peyton Jones S, Blackwell A, Burnett M (2003) A user-centred approach to functions in Excel. In: ICFP '03: proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGPLAN international conference on functional programming. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, pp 165-176
31. Ricca F, Scanniello G, Torchiano M, Reggio G, Astesiano E (2010) On the effectiveness of screen mockups in requirements engineering: results from an internal replication. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement (ESEM 2010). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 17:1-17:10
32. D Sjoeberg J Hannay O Hansen V Kampenes A Karahasanovic NK Liborg A Rekdal 2005 A survey of controlled experiments in software engineering IEEE Trans Softw Eng 31 9 733 753 10.1109/TSE.2005.97 (Pubitemid 41555415)
33. J Sprinkle M Mernik JP Tolvanen D Spinellis 2009 What kinds of nails need a domain-specific hammer? IEEE Softw 26 4 15 18 10.1109/MS.2009.92
34. Storey MA (2005) Theories, methods and tools in program comprehension: past, present and future. In: IWPC '05: proceedings of the 13th international workshop on program comprehension. IEEE Computer Society, pp 181-191
35. S Thibault R Marlet C Consel 1999 Domain-specific languages: from design to implementation-application to video device drivers generation IEEE Trans Softw Eng 25 3 363 377 10.1109/32.798325
36. MJ Varanda Pereira M Mernik D da Cruz PR Henriques 2008 Program comprehension for domain-specific languages Comput Sci Inf Syst 5 2 1 17 10.2298/CSIS0802001P
37. R Webb Collins AR Hevner GH Walton RC Linger 2008 The impacts of function extraction technology on program comprehension: a controlled experiment Inf Softw Technol 50 11 1165 1179 10.1016/j.infsof.2008.04.001
38. F Wilcoxon 1945 Individual comparisons by ranking methods Biom Bull 1 6 80 83 10.2307/3001968
39. DS Wile 2001 Supporting the DSL spectrum J Comput Inf Technol 9 4 263 287 1002.68590 10.2498/cit.2001.04.01