Thorsten Berger
ABSTRACT
Projectional editors are editors where a user's editing actions directly change the abstract syntax tree without using a parser. They promise essentially unrestricted language com position as well as flexible notations, which supports aligning languages with their respective domain and constitutes an essential ingredient of model-driven development. Such editors have existed since the 1980s and gained widespread attention with the Intentional Programming paradigm, which used projectional editing at its core. However, despite the benefits, programming still mainly relies on editing textual code, where projectional editors imply a very different -- typically perceived as worse -- editing experience, often seen as the main challenge prohibiting their widespread adoption. We present an experiment of code-editing activities in a projectional editor, conducted with 19 graduate computer-science students and industrial developers. We investigate the effects of projectional editing on editing efficiency, editing strategies, and error rates -- each of which we also compare to conventional, parser-based editing. We observe that editing is efficient for basic-editing tasks, but that editing strategies and typical errors differ. More complex tasks require substantial experience and a better understanding of the abstract-syntax-tree structure -- then, projectional editing is also efficient. We also witness a tradeoff between fewer typing mistakes and an increased complexity of code editing.
- CamStudio Desktop Screen Recorder. http://sourceforge.net/projects/camstudio.Google Scholar
- Code Orchestra IDE. http://codeorchestra.com/ide.Google Scholar
- Concrete. http://concrete-editor.org.Google Scholar
- Jetbrains MPS. http://www.jetbrains.com/mps.Google Scholar
- mbeddr. http://mbeddr.com.Google Scholar
- mbeddr Graphical State Machines. http://mbeddr.com/2015/03/05/graphicalSM.html.Google Scholar
- MPS Tutorial. http://www.jetbrains.com/mps/docs/tutorial.html.Google Scholar
- Online Appendix. http://gsd.uwaterloo.ca/projectional-workbenches.Google Scholar
- Whole Platform. http://whole.sourceforge.net.Google Scholar
- T. W. Anderson and J. D. Finn. The New Statistical Analysis of Data. Springer, 1996.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. Benjamini and Y. Hochberg. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological), 57(1):289–300, 1995.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. F. Blackwell. First steps in programming: A rationale for attention investment models. In Proc. HCC, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Broy, S. Kirstan, H. Krcmar, and B. Schätz. What is the Benefit of a Model-Based Design of Embedded Software Systems in the Car Industry? In J. Rech and C. Bunse, editors, Emerging Technologies for the Evolution and Maintenance of Software Models. IGI Global, 2011.Google Scholar
- M. Christerson and H. Kolk. Domain expert DSLs, 2009. talk at QCon London 2009, available at http://www.infoq.com/presentations/ DSL-Magnus-Christerson-Henk-Kolk.Google Scholar
- T. Clark. A Declarative Approach to Heterogeneous Multi-Mode Modelling Languages. In Proc. GEMOC, 2014.Google Scholar
- N. Cliff. Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3):494, 1993.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. O. Coplien. Multi-paradigm Design for C++. Addison-Wesley, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Czarnecki and U. W. Eisenecker. Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications. Addison-Wesley, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Erdweg, P. G. Giarrusso, and T. Rendel. Language Composition Untangled. In Proc. LDTA, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Erdweg, T. van der Storm, M. Völter, M. Boersma, R. Bosman, W. R. Cook, A. Gerritsen, A. Hulshout, S. Kelly, A. Loh, et al. The State of the Art in Language Workbenches. In Proc. SLE, 2013.Google Scholar
- M. Fowler. Language Workbenches: The Killer-App for Domain Specific Languages? http://www.martinfowler. com/articles/languageWorkbench.html, 2005.Google Scholar
- J. Gray and G. Karsai. An Examination of DSLs for Concisely Representing Model Traversals and Transformations. In Proc. HICSS, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Höst, B. Regnell, and C. Wohlin. Using Students As Subjects—A Comparative Study of Students and Professionals in Lead-Time Impact Assessment. Empirical Softw. Engg., 5(3):201–214, Nov. 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Hutchinson, J. Whittle, M. Rouncefield, and S. Kristoffersen. Empirical Assessment of MDE in Industry. In Proc. ICSE, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. B. Kieburtz, L. McKinney, J. M. Bell, J. Hook, A. Kotov, J. Lewis, D. P. Oliva, T. Sheard, I. Smith, and L. Walton. A Software Engineering Experiment in Software Component Generation. In Proc. ICSE, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. J. Ko, H. H. Aung, and B. A. Myers. Design Requirements for More Flexible Structured Editors from a Study of Programmers’ Text Editing. In Proc. CHI EA, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Kuhn, G. C. Murphy, and C. A. Thompson. An Exploratory Study of Forces and Frictions Affecting Large-Scale Model-Driven Development. In Proc. MODELS. 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. M. Lewis. How programming environment shapes perception, learning and goals: Logo vs. scratch. In Proc. SIGCSE, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Liebel, N. Marko, M. Tichy, A. Leitner, and J. Hansson. Assessing the state-of-practice of model-based engineering in the embedded systems domain. In Proc. MODELS, 2014.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Liggesmeyer and M. Trapp. Trends in Embedded Software Engineering. IEEE Softw., 26(3):19–25, May 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Lillack, T. Berger, and R. Hebig. Experiences from reengineering and modularizing a legacy software generator with a projectional language workbench. In Proc. SPLC. 2016. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Medina-Mora and P. H. Feiler. An Incremental Programming Environment. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 7(5):472–482, Sept. 1981. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. C. Miller and B. A. Myers. Multiple Selections in Smart Text Editing. In Proc. IUI, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Z. Molotnikov, M. Völter, and D. Ratiu. Automated domain-specific C verification with mbeddr. In Proc. ASE, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Notkin. The GANDALF Project. J. Syst. Softw., 5(2):91–105, May 1985. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. F. Poller and S. K. Garter. A Comparative Study of Moded and Modeless Text Editing by Experienced Editor Users. In Proc. CHI, 1983. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. W. Porter. Design of a Syntax Directed Editor for PSDL (Prototype Systems Design Language). Master’s thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, USA, 1988.Google Scholar
- D. Ratiu, B. Schaetz, M. Voelter, and B. Kolb. Language engineering as an enabler for incrementally defined formal analyses. In Proc. FormSERA, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. W. Reps and T. Teitelbaum. The Synthesizer Generator. In Proc. SDE, 1984. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Runeson. Using Students as Experiment Subjects—An Analysis on Graduate and Freshmen Student Data. In Proc. EASE, 2003.Google Scholar
- B. Selic. The Pragmatics of Model-Driven Development. IEEE Softw., 20(5):19–25, Sept. 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Shadish, T. Cook, and D. Campbell. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002.Google Scholar
- M. Simi and F. Campagne. Composable Languages for Bioinformatics: The NYoSh Experiment. PeerJ, 2:e241, 2014.Google Scholar
- C. Simonyi. The death of computer languages, the birth of intentional programming. In Proc. NATO Science Committee Conference, 1995.Google Scholar
- C. Simonyi, M. Christerson, and S. Clifford. Intentional Software. In Proc. OOPSLA, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Strauss and J. Corbin. Open Coding. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, 2:101–121, 1990.Google Scholar
- M. W. Van Someren, Y. F. Barnard, J. A. Sandberg, et al. The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes. Academic Press London, 1994.Google Scholar
- E. Visser. WebDSL: A Case Study in Domain-Specific Language Engineering. In R. Lämmel, J. Visser, and J. a. Saraiva, editors, Generative and Transformational Techniques in Software Engineering II, pages 291–373. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Voelter. mbeddr C User Guide. Itemis AG. http://mbeddr.com/userguide/UserGuideExport.html.Google Scholar
- M. Voelter. Language and IDE Modularization and Composition with MPS. In GTTSE, LNCS. Springer, 2011.Google Scholar
- M. Voelter and S. Lisson. Supporting Diverse Notations in MPS’ Projectional Editor. 2014.Google Scholar
- M. Voelter, D. Ratiu, B. Kolb, and B. Schätz. mbeddr: Instantiating a Language Workbench in the Embedded Software Domain. Autom. Softw. Eng., 20(3):339–390, 2013.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Voelter, D. Ratiu, B. Schaetz, and B. Kolb. mbeddr: an extensible c-based programming language and ide for embedded systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd annual conference on Systems, programming, and applications: software for humanity, pages 121–140. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Voelter, D. Ratiu, and F. Tomassetti. Requirements as First-Class Citizens. In Proc. ACES-MB, 2013.Google Scholar
- M. Voelter, J. Siegmund, T. Berger, and B. Kolb. Towards User-Friendly Projectional Editors. In Proc. SLE, 2014.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Voelter, A. van Deursen, B. Kolb, and S. Eberle. Using C Language Extensions for Developing Embedded Software: A Case Study. In Proc. OOPSLA, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Voelter, A. van Deursen, B. Kolb, and S. Eberle. Using c language extensions for developing embedded software: A case study. In Proc. OOPSLA, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Efficiency of projectional editing: a controlled experiment
Recommendations
Robust projectional editing
SLE 2017: Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language EngineeringWhile contemporary projectional editors make sure that the edited programs conform to the programming language's metamodel, they do not enforce that they are also well-formed, that is, that they obey the well-formedness rules defined for the language. ...
Projectional editing of variational software
GPCE '14Editing the source code of variational software is complicated by the presence of variation annotations, such as #ifdef statements, and by code that is only included in some configurations. When editing some configurations and not others, it would be ...
Language extension and composition with language workbenches
OOPSLA '10: Proceedings of the ACM international conference companion on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications companionDomain-specific languages (DSLs) provide high expressive power focused on a particular problem domain. They provide linguistic abstractions and specialized syntax specifically designed for a domain, allowing developers to avoid boilerplate code and low-...
Comments