Standard

Modularity and Conventions for Maintainable Concurrent Language Implementations. / Marr, Stefan; Nicolay, Jens; Van Cutsem, Tom; D'Hondt, Theo.

Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Modularity In Systems Software (MISS'2012). 2012.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference paper

Harvard

Marr, S, Nicolay, J, Van Cutsem, T & D'Hondt, T 2012, Modularity and Conventions for Maintainable Concurrent Language Implementations. in Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Modularity In Systems Software (MISS'2012). 2012 workshop on Modularity in Systems Software, Potsdam, Germany, 27/03/12.

APA

Marr, S., Nicolay, J., Van Cutsem, T., & D'Hondt, T. (2012). Modularity and Conventions for Maintainable Concurrent Language Implementations. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Modularity In Systems Software (MISS'2012)

Vancouver

Marr S, Nicolay J, Van Cutsem T, D'Hondt T. Modularity and Conventions for Maintainable Concurrent Language Implementations. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Modularity In Systems Software (MISS'2012). 2012

Author

BibTeX

@inproceedings{5d4ab24f5c8340418232c82d054c7b2f,
title = "Modularity and Conventions for Maintainable Concurrent Language Implementations",
abstract = "For a fruitful discussion at the MISS'2012 workshop, we did the exercise to review what we have learned in recent years from implementing languages for parallel and concurrent programming. Our goal for this collective case study is to identify the approaches used to facilitate correctness and maintainability of our implementations. The main questions we ask in our case study are: What guides modularization? Are informal approaches used to facilitate correctness? Are concurrency concerns modularized? And finally, where is language support lacking mostly? The subjects of our case study are AmbientTalk, SLIP, and the RoarVM. All three language implementations evolved over the years and are the foundation of our language and VM research as well as our teaching program. The evolution over the years enables us to look back at specific experiments to understand the impact of concurrency on modularity. We conclude from our review that concurrency concerns are one of the strongest drivers when it comes to defining module boundaries. It can be helpful when languages offer sophisticated modularization constructs, however, with respect to concurrency, other language features are of greater importance. Furthermore, tool support that enables remodularization taking concurrency invariants into account would be of great value.",
keywords = "modularity, concurrency, virtual machines",
author = "Stefan Marr and Jens Nicolay and {Van Cutsem}, Tom and Theo D'Hondt",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-1-4503-1217-2",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Modularity In Systems Software (MISS'2012)",

}

RIS

TY - GEN

T1 - Modularity and Conventions for Maintainable Concurrent Language Implementations

AU - Marr, Stefan

AU - Nicolay, Jens

AU - Van Cutsem, Tom

AU - D'Hondt, Theo

PY - 2012/3

Y1 - 2012/3

N2 - For a fruitful discussion at the MISS'2012 workshop, we did the exercise to review what we have learned in recent years from implementing languages for parallel and concurrent programming. Our goal for this collective case study is to identify the approaches used to facilitate correctness and maintainability of our implementations. The main questions we ask in our case study are: What guides modularization? Are informal approaches used to facilitate correctness? Are concurrency concerns modularized? And finally, where is language support lacking mostly? The subjects of our case study are AmbientTalk, SLIP, and the RoarVM. All three language implementations evolved over the years and are the foundation of our language and VM research as well as our teaching program. The evolution over the years enables us to look back at specific experiments to understand the impact of concurrency on modularity. We conclude from our review that concurrency concerns are one of the strongest drivers when it comes to defining module boundaries. It can be helpful when languages offer sophisticated modularization constructs, however, with respect to concurrency, other language features are of greater importance. Furthermore, tool support that enables remodularization taking concurrency invariants into account would be of great value.

AB - For a fruitful discussion at the MISS'2012 workshop, we did the exercise to review what we have learned in recent years from implementing languages for parallel and concurrent programming. Our goal for this collective case study is to identify the approaches used to facilitate correctness and maintainability of our implementations. The main questions we ask in our case study are: What guides modularization? Are informal approaches used to facilitate correctness? Are concurrency concerns modularized? And finally, where is language support lacking mostly? The subjects of our case study are AmbientTalk, SLIP, and the RoarVM. All three language implementations evolved over the years and are the foundation of our language and VM research as well as our teaching program. The evolution over the years enables us to look back at specific experiments to understand the impact of concurrency on modularity. We conclude from our review that concurrency concerns are one of the strongest drivers when it comes to defining module boundaries. It can be helpful when languages offer sophisticated modularization constructs, however, with respect to concurrency, other language features are of greater importance. Furthermore, tool support that enables remodularization taking concurrency invariants into account would be of great value.

KW - modularity

KW - concurrency

KW - virtual machines

M3 - Conference paper

SN - 978-1-4503-1217-2

BT - Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Modularity In Systems Software (MISS'2012)

ER -

ID: 2130686