Declaratively defining domain-specific language debuggers

Abstract

Tool support is vital to the effectiveness of domain-specific languages. With language workbenches, domain-specific languages and their tool support can be generated from a combined, high-level specification. This paper shows how such a specification can be extended to describe a debugger for a language. To realize this, we introduce a meta-language for coordinating the debugger that abstracts over the complexity of writing a debugger by hand. We describe the implementation of a language-parametric infrastructure for debuggers that can be instantiated based on this specification. The approach is implemented in the Spoofax language workbench and validated through realistic case studies with the Stratego transformation language and the WebDSL web programming language.

References

1. M. Auguston. Building program behavior models. In ECAI Workshop on Spatial and Temporal Reasoning, pages 19--26, 2007.
2. M. Bravenboer, K. T. Kalleberg, R. Vermaas, and E. Visser. Stratego/XT 0.17. A language and toolset for program transformation. Science of Computer Programming, 72 (1-2): 52--70, 2008.
3. P. Charles, R. M. Fuhrer, S. M. S. Jr., E. Duesterwald, and J. Vinju. Accelerating the creation of customized, language-specific IDEs in eclipse. In S. Arora and G. T. Leavens, editors, Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, OOPSLA 2009, 2009.
4. J. C. Cleaveland. Building application generators. Softw., 5 (4), 1988.
5. S. Efftinge and M. Voelter. oAW xText: A framework for textual DSLs. In Workshop on Modeling Symposium at Eclipse Summit, 2006.
6. R. E. Faith, L. S. Nyland, and J. Prins. Khepera: A system for rapid implementation of domain specific languages. In Conference on Domain-Specific Languages, October 15-17, 1997, Santa Barbara, California, USA. USENIX, 1997.
7. M. Fowler. Language workbenches: The killer-app for domain specific languages? http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/languageWorkbench.html, 2005.
8. M. Fowler. Domain-Specific Languages. Addison Wesley, 2011.
9. D. M. Groenewegen, Z. Hemel, and E. Visser. Separation of concerns and linguistic integration in WebDSL. Software, 27 (5), September/October 2010.
10. Z. Hemel and E. Visser. Declaratively programming the mobile web with mobl. In Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, OOPSLA 2011. ACM, 2011.
11. P. Henriques, M. Pereira, M. Mernik, M. Lenic, J. Gray, and H. Wu. Automatic generation of language-based tools using the LISA system. Software, IEE Proceedings -, 152 (2): 54--69, april 2005.
12. L. C. L. Kats and E. Visser. The Spoofax language workbench: rules for declarative specification of languages and IDEs. In W. R. Cook, S. Clarke, and M. C. Rinard, editors, Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, OOPSLA 2010, pages 444--463. ACM, 2010.
13. L. C. L. Kats, E. Visser, and G. Wachsmuth. Pure and declarative syntax definition: paradise lost and regained. In W. R. Cook, S. Clarke, and M. C. Rinard, editors, Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, OOPSLA 2010, pages 918--932. ACM, 2010.
14. P. Klint. A meta-environment for generating programming environments. Transactions on Software Engineering Methodology, 2 (2): 176--201, 1993.
15. T. Kosar, N. Oliveira, M. Mernik, V. Pereira, M. Crepinsek, C. Da, and R. Henriques. Comparing general-purpose and domain-specific languages: An empirical study. Computer Science and Information Systems, 7 (2): 247--264, 2010.
16. H. Krahn, B. Rumpe, and S. Völkel. Monticore: Modular development of textual domain specific languages. In R. F. Paige and B. Meyer, editors, Objects, Components, Models and Patterns, TOOLS EUROPE 2008, volume 11 of LNBIP, pages 297--315. Springer, 2008.
17. R. Mannadiar and H. Vangheluwe. Debugging in domain-specific modelling. In Software language engineering, SLE'10, pages 276--285. Springer-Verlag, 2011.
18. M. Mernik, J. Heering, and A. M. Sloane. When and how to develop domain-specific languages. Computing Surveys, 37 (4): 316--344, 2005.
19. D. Rebernak, M. Mernik, H. Wu, and J. G. Gray. Domain-specific aspect languages for modularising crosscutting concerns in grammars. IEE Proceedings - Software, 3 (3): 184--200, 2009.
20. Y. Smaragdakis and D. Batory. Application generators. Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, 2000.
21. M. van den Brand, B. Cornelissen, P. A. Olivier, and J. J. Vinju. TIDE: A generic debugging framework - tool demonstration. ENTCS, 141 (4): 161--165, 2005.
22. I. Vessey. Toward a theory of computer program bugs: An empirical test. Int. Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 30 (1): 23--46, 1989.
23. E. Visser. Syntax Definition for Language Prototyping. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, September 1997.
24. E. Visser. WebDSL: A case study in domain-specific language engineering. In R. Lämmel, J. Visser, and J. Saraiva, editors, Generative and Transformational Techniques in Software Engineering II, Int. Summer School, GTTSE 2007, volume 5235 of LNCS, pages 291--373. Springer, 2007.
25. M. Voelter and K. Solomatov. Language modularization and composition with projectional language workbenches illustrated with MPS. In M. van den Brand, B. Malloy, and S. Staab, editors, Software Language Engineering, SLE 2010, LNCS. Springer, 2010.
26. D. S. Wile. Supporting the DSL spectrum. CIT. Journal of computing and information technology, 9 (4): 263--287, 2001.
27. H. Wu, J. Gray, and M. Mernik. Grammar-driven generation of domain-specific language debuggers. Software: Practice and Experience, 38 (10): 1073--1103, 2008.

Index Terms

• Software and its engineering

  • Software creation and management

    • Software verification and validation

      • Software defect analysis

        • Software testing and debugging

  • Software notations and tools

    • Compilers

    • Development frameworks and environments