Characteristics of modern system implementation languages

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Characteristics of modern system implementation languages

Full text

Pdf (898 KB)

Source

ACM Annual Computer Science Conference archive
Proceedings of the 1995 ACM 23rd annual conference on Computer science table of contents

Nashville, Tennessee, United States

Pages: 18 - 25

Year of Publication: 1995

ISBN:0-89791-737-5

Authors

J. M. Bishop	Computer Science Department, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa
R. Faria	Computer Science Department, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa

Sponsor

ACM: Association for Computing Machinery

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 0, Downloads (12 Months): 9, Citation Count: 0

Additional Information:

references index terms collaborative colleagues peer to peer

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/259526.259532 What is a DOI?

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Barbacci M R and several others, Durra. a structure description language for de~'eloping distributed applications, Software Engineering Journal 8 (2) 83-94 March 1993.
	2	Bishop Judy M, Languages for configuration programming: a comparison, University of Pretoria Technical Report 94/04, submitted for publication 1994.
	3	Grady Booch, Object-oriented analysis and design with applications (2nd ed.), Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA, 1993
	4	John R. Callahan , James M. Purtilo, A Packaging System for Heterogeneous Execution Environments, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.17 n.6, p.626-635, June 1991 [doi>10.1109/32.87286]
	5	Cordy J R and Carmichael I H, The TXL7 programming language syntax and informal semantics, Software Technology Laboratory Report, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, available on ftp from TXL@qucis.queensu.ca.
	6	Crane S and Twidle K, Constructing distributed Unix utilities in Regis, Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Configurable Distributed Systems, Pittsburgh, 183-189, available from the IEEE, 1994.
	7	DeRemer F and Kron H, Programming-in-the-large versus programming-in-the-small, IEEE Software Engineering 2 ~'2j 80--86 1976.
	8	Feuer A and Gehani N, A methodology for comparing programming languages, in their book Comparing and assessing programming languages , Prentice-Hall, 197- 208, 1984.
	9	Robert W. Gray , Steven P. Levi , Vincent P. Heuring , Anthony M. Sloane , William M. Waite, Eli: a complete, flexible compiler construction system, Communications of the ACM, v.35 n.2, p.121-130, Feb. 1992 [doi>10.1145/129630.129637]
	10	CORPORATE INMOS Limited, Transputer development system (2nd ed.), Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1990
	11	Kitayama T, Mercer C W, Nakajima T, Savage S, Tokuda H and Zelenka J, Real-time Math 3.0 User Referen~'e Manual, School of Computer Science, CMU, Pittsburgh. August 1993.
	12	Kramer J. Configuration programming - a framework .for the development of distributable systems, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Systems and Software Engineering fCompEuro 9(.)), Israel, May 1990
	13	Magee J, Dulay N and Kramer J. A constructi~'e de~'elopment environment .for parallel and distributed programs Proceedings of the 2rid International Workshop on Configurable Distributed Systems. Pittsburgh, 4-14, available from the IEEE, 1994.
	14	Ruben Prieto-Diaz , James M Neighbors, Module interconnection languages, Journal of Systems and Software, v.6 n.4, p.307-334, Nov. 1986 [doi>10.1016/0164-1212(86)90002-6]
	15	James Rumbaugh , Michael Blaha , William Premerlani , Frederick Eddy , William Lorensen, Object-oriented modeling and design, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1991
	16	Shaw M, Alines G T, Newcomer J M, Reid B K and WulfW A, A comparison of programming languages for software engineering, Software Practice and Experience 11 fit 1-52 1981.
	17	Shaw M and Garlan D, Charactertstics ofhigher-le~'el language.~ for software architecture, unpublished manuscript. Carnegie Mellon University, 1993.
	18	Shaw M, DeLine R, Klein D V, Ross T L, Young D M and Zelesnik G, Abstractions for software architecture and tooi~ to support them, unpublished manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University 1993.
	19	Sommerville ! and Thomson R, Configuration specificatmn using a s~'stem struc'ture language in Proceedings of the I st International Workshop on Configurable Distributed Systems, London 1992.
	20	Paul David Stotts, A comparative survey of concurrent programming languages, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.17 n.9, p.76-87, September 1982 [doi>10.1145/947955.947965]
	21	Andrew S. Tanenbaum , M. Frans Kaashoek , Henri E. Bal, Parallel Programming Using Shared Objects and Broadcasting, Computer, v.25 n.8, p.10-19, August 1992 [doi>10.1109/2.153276]
	22	Wing J M, ed. Proceedings of the Workshop on Interface Definition Languages, Portland January 1994, in SIGPI,AN Notices 29 (8), August 1994.
	23	Wirth N, Programming languages: what to demand and ho~' to assess them, Software Engineering ed. Ron Pcrr~tt, Academic Press, New York, 155-173, 1977, als~ in Comparing and assessing the programming languages Adz, C and Pascal, cds A Feucr and N Gehani. Prentice- Hall, 245- 261, 1984.
	24	Niklaus Wirth , Jürg Gutknecht, Project Oberon: the design of an operating system and compiler, ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, 1992