Johann Thor Mogensen Ingibergsson
Stefan Hanenberg
Joshua Sunshine
ABSTRACT
Domain-specific languages (DSLs) are commonly expected to improve communication with domain experts compared to general-purpose programming languages (GPLs). However, there is a huge gap in the literature concerning how evidence can be given for this expected improvement---a phenomenon that is not only known from DSLs, but also from GPLs in general. This paper presents an experience report of applying an iterative process for evaluating DSL readability for a given DSL in the context of safety-critical software in robotics. The goal of this process is to conduct a randomized controlled trial that gives evidence for the better readability of the DSL in comparison to the readability of a GPL. In this experience report, we describe common pitfalls we identified and possible solutions to overcome these problems in the future.
- K.K. Aggarwal, Y. Singh, and J.K. Chhabra. 2002. An integrated measure of software maintainability. In Reliability and maintainability symposium, 2002. Proceedings. Annual. IEEE, 235--241.Google Scholar
- M. Akour and B. Falah. 2016. Application domain and programming language readability yardsticks. 2016 7th International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology (CSIT) (2016), 1--6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Barišić, V. Amaral, and M. Goul ao. 2018. Usability driven DSL development with USE-ME. COMLAN 51, Supplement C (2018), 118 -- 157. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Bruun, P. Gull, L. Hofmeister, and J. Stage. 2009. Let your users do the testing: a comparison of three remote asynchronous usability testing methods. In Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors Computing Systems. ACM, 1619--1628. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Raymond P. L. Buse and Westley R. Weimer. 2010. Learning a Metric for Code Readability. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 36, 4 (July 2010), 546--558. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J.L. Elshoff and M. Marcotty. 1982. Improving Computer Program Readability to Aid Modification. Commun. ACM 25, 8 (Aug. 1982), 512--521. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Feigenspan, C. Kästner, J. Liebig, S. Apel, and S. Hanenberg. 2012. Measuring programming experience. In Program Comprehension (ICPC), 2012 IEEE 20th International Conference on. IEEE, 73--82.Google Scholar
- S. Hanenberg. 2010. Faith, Hope, and Love: An Essay on Software Science's Neglect of Human Factors. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications (OOPSLA '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 933--946. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Johann Thor Mogensen Ingibergsson, Dirk Kraft, and Ulrik Pagh Schultz. 2017. Safety Computer Vision Rules for Improved Sensor Certification. In The First IEEE International Conference on Robotics Computing (ICRC-17).Google Scholar
- K. Kaijanaho. 2015. Evidence-based programming language design : a philosophical and methodological exploration. University of Jyväskylä, Finnland.Google Scholar
- A. Kittur, E.H. Chi, and B. Suh. 2008. Crowdsourcing user studies with Mechanical Turk. In Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors Computing Systems. ACM, 453--456. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A.J. Ko, T.D. Latoza, and M.M. Burnett. 2015. A practical guide to controlled experiments of software engineering tools with human participants. Empirical Software Engineering 20, 1 (2015), 110--141. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Mernik, J. Heering, and A.M. Sloane. 2005. When and how to Develop Domain-Specific Languages. Comput. Surveys 37, 4 (2005), 316--344. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brad A. Myers, John F. Pane, and Andy Ko. 2004. Natural Programming Languages and Environments. Commun. ACM 47, 9 (Sept. 2004), 47--52. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Posnett, A. Hindle, and P. Devanbu. 2011. A Simpler Model of Software Readability. In Proceedings of the 8th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 73--82. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Rosenthal and R.L. Rosnow. 1991. Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. McGraw-Hill Humanities Social.Google Scholar
- A. Stefik and S. Hanenberg. 2014. The Programming Language Wars: Questions and Responsibilities for the Programming Language Community. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming & Software (Onward! 2014). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 283--299. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Stefik and S. Siebert. 2013. An empirical investigation into programming language syntax. ACM TOCE 13, 4 (2013), 19. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Sunshine, J.D. Herbsleb, and J. Aldrich. 2014. Structuring documentation to support state search: A laboratory experiment about protocol programming. In ECOOP. Springer, 157--181. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P.M. Uesbeck, A. Stefik, S. Hanenberg, J. Pedersen, and P. Daleiden. 2016. An empirical study on the impact of C++ lambdas and programmer experience. In Proc. 38th ICSE. ACM, 760--771. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Höst, M.C. Ohlsson, and B. Regnell. 2012. Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Experience report: studying the readability of a domain specific language
Recommendations
Modular language implementation in Rascal - experience report
All software evolves, and programming languages and programming language tools are no exception. And just like in ordinary software construction, modular implementations can help ease the process of changing a language implementation and its dependent ...
Experience report: using hackage to inform language design
HASKELL '10Hackage, an online repository of Haskell applications and libraries, provides a hub for programmers to both release code to and use code from the larger Haskell community. We suggest that Hackage can also serve as a valuable resource for language ...
Experience report: using hackage to inform language design
Haskell '10: Proceedings of the third ACM Haskell symposium on HaskellHackage, an online repository of Haskell applications and libraries, provides a hub for programmers to both release code to and use code from the larger Haskell community. We suggest that Hackage can also serve as a valuable resource for language ...
Comments