Design and implementation of a modern compiler course

ABSTRACT

Current literature states that the undergraduate curriculum can no longer afford the luxury of a traditional compiler construction course. Nevertheless, there is an increasing need for an understanding of how to design and implement domain-specific languages. This paper presents a modern course in compiler construction, designed to provide a student with the capability of quickly constructin robust processors for a variety of language-related applications.

REFERENCES

• 1: Dungeons and dragons. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome.
• 2: ECEN 4553. http://ece.colorado.edu/~ecen4553.
• 3: Eli: An integrated toolset for compiler construction. Documentation, examples, download from http://eli-project.sourceforge.net/.
• 4: GNU Emacs. http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/.
• 5: Python. http://www.python.org/.
• 6: Syntax highlighting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax_highlighting.
• 7: Vim. http://www.vim.org/.
• 8: M. L. J. Abercrombie. The Anatomy of Judgement. Hutchinson, London, 1960.
• 9: A. Aiken. Cool: The Classroom Object-Oriented Language. http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~aiken/cool/.
• 10: Andrew W. Appel, Modern compiler implementation in Java, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1997
• 11: Lecia Jane Barker , Kathy Garvin-Doxas , Michele Jackson, Defensive climate in the computer science classroom, Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, February 27-March 03, 2002, Cincinnati, Kentucky
• 12: Kim B. Bruce, Foundations of object-oriented languages: types and semantics, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2002
• 13: Graham Button , Wes Sharrock, Project work: the organisation of collaborative design and development in software engineering, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, v.5 n.4, p.369-386, 1996 [doi>10.1007/BF00136711]
• 14: CMMI Product Team. CMMI for Software Engineering, Version 1.1, Staged Representation (CMMI-SW, V1.1, Staged). Technical Report CMU/SEI-2002-TR-029, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University, 2002. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/02.reports/02tr029.html.
• 15: Jacques Cohen, Updating computer science education, Communications of the ACM, v.48 n.6, June 2005 [doi>10.1145/1064830.1064853]
• 16: John M. Dennis , Elizabeth R. Jessup, Automated memory analysis: improving the design and implementation of iterative algorithms, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, 2005
• 17: Amer Diwan , William M. Waite , Michele H. Jackson, PL-detective: a system for teaching programming language concepts, Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, March 03-07, 2004, Norfolk, Virginia, USA
• 18: Vincent P. Heuring , Harry F. Jordan, Computer Systems Design and Architecture (2nd Edition), Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003
• 19: R. Jeffries, A. T. Turner, P. G. Polson, and M. E. Atwood. The processes involved in software design. In J. R. Anderson, editor, Cognitive Skills and their Acquisition, pages 254--284. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1981.
• 20: Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula. Computing Curricula 2001 --- Computer Science. Final report, Dec. 2001. http://www.computer.org/portal/cms_docs_ieeecs/ieeecs/education/cc2001/cc2001.pdf.
• 21: Donald E. Knuth, Literate programming, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CA, 1992
• 22: J. Larus. SPIM: A MIPS32 simulator. http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~larus/spim.html.
• 23: P. M. Leonardi. The mythos of engineering culture: A study of communicative performances and interaction. Master's thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, 2003. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~pltools/pubs/Leonardi.pdf.
• 24: M. Shaw, S. Brookes, M. Donner, J. Driscoll, M. Mauldin, R. Pausch, B. Scherlis, and A. Spector. Proposal for an Undergraduate Computer Science Curriculum for the 1980's, Part II: Detailed Course Descriptions. Technical Report CMU-CS-83-157, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1983.
• 25: Anthony M. Sloane, An evaluation of an automatically generated compiler, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), v.17 n.5, p.691-703, Sept. 1995 [doi>10.1145/213978.213980]
• 26: E. Triantaphyllou. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 2000.
• 27: J. Van Maanen and S. R. Barley. Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings, editors, Research in Organizational Behavior, volume 6, pages 287--365. JAI Press, 1984.
• 28: William M. Waite, The compiler course in today's curriculum: three strategies, Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, March 03-05, 2006, Houston, Texas, USA
• 29: William M. Waite , Michele H. Jackson , Amer Diwan, The conversational classroom, Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, February 19-23, 2003, Reno, Navada, USA
• 30: William M. Waite , Michele H. Jackson , Amer Diwan , Paul M. Leonardi, Student culture vs group work in computer science, Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, March 03-07, 2004, Norfolk, Virginia, USA
• 31: K. Weick. The social psychology of organizing. Addison-Wesley, 1979.
• 32: D. E. Yessick and J. Jones. Reinventing the wheel or not yet another compiler compiler compiler. In Southeast ACM Conference, 2002. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/705273.html.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.3 COMPUTERS AND EDUCATION
      K.3.2 Computer and Information Science Education
          Subjects: Computer science education

General Terms:
Design

Keywords:
abstraction, course pedagogy, curriculum issues, programming languages/paradigms, student culture, tools