Programming pearls: little languages
Communications of the ACM
Domain-specific languages: an annotated bibliography
ACM SIGPLAN Notices
Meta-programming with Concrete Object Syntax
GPCE '02 Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGPLAN/SIGSOFT conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering
Modular Domain Specific Languages and Tools
ICSR '98 Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Reuse
Stratego/XT 0.16: components for transformation systems
Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Partial evaluation and semantics-based program manipulation
The Definitive ANTLR Reference: Building Domain-Specific Languages
The Definitive ANTLR Reference: Building Domain-Specific Languages
Silver: an Extensible Attribute Grammar System
Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS)
Domain specific language implementation via compile-time meta-programming
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
The ruby programming language
Hi-index | 0.00 |
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 four approaches by implementing a common DSL case study. In addition, we present a comparative study of the four approaches.