qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw

ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
Software Construction
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
Parametric Analysis of Domain
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
specific Languages
Instructor: Ms. Mehreen Sirshar
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
Lubaba Rashid(075)
Javaria Asif(073)

BSE VI (B)

Table 1: Evaluation Criteria for Domain Specific Languages

Parameter

Meaning

Maintainability
Readability
Comprehension
Expressiveness
Flexibility
Reliability
Cost effectiveness

The proposed DSL language is maintainable

The proposed DSL is understandable
The proposed system is comprehensive
The proposed DSL is expressive in its domain
System is flexible enough to accept changes
System has consistent working in terms of time
Proposed DSL is effective in terms of time and
money
Proposed DSL is able to run on multiple
platforms
The proposed DSL increases productive or not.

Portability
Productivity
Reusability
Efficiency
Performance
Development languages
Operating Environment

Is the suggested DSL technique is reusable

The proposed technique is efficient in terms of
ratio of output to input efforts
The proposed technique is efficient as well as
productive.
Languages which are used to develop the
proposed DSL
Environment used to operate the proposed DSL
language.

Table 2.1 Analysis of Parameters for Domain Specific Languages

Possible
value
Yes,No
High, Low
Yes, No
Yes, No
Yes, No
Low,High
Low, High
Yes, No
Yes, No
Yes, No
High, Low
High, Low
Python, C,
C++,
Fortran,
MATLAB,
UML,
OptiML

S Technique
#

Maintainability

Readabilit
y

Compreh
ension

Expressive
ness

Flexibilit
y

Reliability

1 A. Van et al.
2000
2 A. van,
2001
3 DAVID R,
2000
4 Giovanni
and
Gerardo,
2006
5 Arie and
Paul, 2000
6 Martin and
Eelco, 2004

Yes

High

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

Cost
effectivene
ss
Yes

Yes

High

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

Yes

Yes

Low

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

Yes

Yes

Low

Yes

Yes

Yes

Low

No

Yes

High

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

No

Yes

High

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

No

7 David
Atkins,
1999
8 H. Conrad,
2008
9 Arie and
Paul, 2002
1 Arvind K,
0 2011
1 John et
1 al,2003

Yes

Low

No

No

Yes

High

Yes

Yes

Low

No

No

Yes

High

Yes

Yes

High

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

Yes

Yes

High

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

Yes

N/a

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

1 Vijay and
2 keshav ,
2000

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

1 Gabor et al,
3 2000

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

1 John K,
4 1998

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Low

1 Arie and
5 Paul

N/a

Yes

No

No

No

No

High

1 Emin and
6 Brian,1999

N/a

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

High

1 James,1996
7
1 Xavier and
8 Pau, 2004

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

High

Table 2.1 Analysis of Parameters for Domain Specific Languages

S Technique
#
1 A. Van et
al. 2000
2 A. van,
2001
3 DAVID R,
2000
4 Giovanni
and
Gerardo,
2006
5 Arie and
Paul, 2000
6 Martin and
Eelco,
2004

Portabil Productivi
ty
ity
Yes
Yes

Reusabil
ity
No

Efficiency Performance
High

Development
languages
NA

Operatin
environm
NA

Low

Yes

Yes

No

Low

High

Cobol

NA

Yes

Yes

No

Low

High

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

Yes

Low

High

Python

NA

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

High

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

High

XML, Java

NA

7 David
Atkins,
1999
8 H. Conrad,
2008
9 Arie and
Paul, 2002
1 Arvind K,
0 2011
1 John et al,
1 2003

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

High

C++,MHTML

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

High

Ruby

SGI and
Solaris
platforms
Unix

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

High

FDL,Java

NA

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

High

NA

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

High

OptiML,C+
+,MATLAB
C/C++

1 Vijay and
2 keshav

Yes

Yes

Yes

Low

High

C/ fortran

N/A

1 Gabor et al, Yes

3 2000

Yes

Yes

High

High

Pthython, C,
C++, Fortran,

MATLAB

1 John K,

Yes

Yes

High

High

C++, C, Java

NA

Yes

Operating
Environm

4 1998
1 Arie and
5 Paul, 2000

No

No

Yes

Low

Low

N/A

NA

1 Emin and
6 Brian,1999

N/a

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

Java

UML feat
diagrams

1 James,
7 1996

N/a

N/a

N/a

N/a

N/a

N/A

lava

1 Xavier and
8 Pau, 2004

Yes

Yes

N/a

N/a

High

CLAM, XML

NA