Quality in use of domain-specific languages: a case study

308 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
308
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • {}
  • Quality in use of domain-specific languages: a case study

    1. 1. 1 Domain Engineering Language Design Language Deployment Language evaluation / testing Language Implementation
    2. 2.  Did I build the right thing? › Is end user satisfied with product?  Did I build the thing right? › Is the right product functionality provided? (from software engineer understanding) 2
    3. 3. 3  Focus is on the language Focus is NOT on the language’s users Should this be the other way around?  What about the context of evaluation?  
    4. 4. 4  Few papers report any sort of evaluation › Even those provide too few details › Too much tacit knowledge: virtually impossible to replicate evaluations and perform metaanalysis  Predominance of toy examples › Unsubstantiated claims to the merits of DSLs  Poor characterization of subjects involved in validation › How representative are they of real DSL users? [Gabriel 2010]
    5. 5. 5  Increasing awareness to the usability evaluation of languages › Measured by the size of community that use GPL › Quantitative data collection › Comparisons between different versions of same language or suitability of different languages to context of use  The methods used to evaluate usability of GPLs are not adequate because they are centred only on computation domain concepts
    6. 6.  DSLs are meant to close gap between Domain Experts and Solutioncomputational platform  DSL development is hard › Requires domain and language development expertise (few people have both)  Many DSL development techniques (which should we use?)  We should consider costs of evaluating DSLs vs. costs of producing inadequate DSLs 6
    7. 7. 7 We are interested in languages that are used as communication interfaces between humans and computers User Interface means a communicating between humans and computers Model of that communication can be seen as a language
    8. 8.    8 A language is a model that describes the allowed terms and how to compose them into the sentences involved in a particular human-computer (H/C) interaction Different languages may have different context of use and their users most likely will have different knowledge sets Context of Use – ‘The users, tasks, equipment (hardware, software and materials), and the physical and social environments in which product is used’ [ISO 9126]
    9. 9.  If we say that context of use has some ontological purpose, then we can see it as problem to be solved in the language’s users’ mind  Languages that reduce the use of computation domain concepts and focus on the domain concepts of the contexts of use’s problem, are called Domain Specific Languages (DSLs) 9
    10. 10. 1 0 Usability is key characteristic for evaluating the Quality of User Interfaces Since we defined H/C languages as UIs, it should be also used for Quality evaluation of DSLs
    11. 11. 1 1 The capability of a software product to enable specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, productivity, safety and satisfaction in specified contexts of use
    12. 12.  To evaluate achieved Quality in Use of DSLs we find it most relevant to evaluate its: › Effectiveness – accuracy with which a developer completes language sentence › Efficiency – time spent to complete a sentence › Satisfaction – freedom from inconveniences and positive attitude towards the use of the language › Accessibility – learnabiltiy and memorability of language terms 1 2
    13. 13.  Cognitive activities involved in language are: › Learning both syntax and semantics › Composition of the syntax required to perform the function › Comprehension of the function syntax composed by someone else › Debugging of syntax (semantics) written by ourselves or others › Modification of a function written by ourselves or others 1 3
    14. 14.  Query writing task– users are given a question stated in natural language and have to write sentence in the given language  Tests: › Immediate comprehension › Reviews › Final exams 1 4
    15. 15. 1 5 Visual query language for High Energy Physics PHESANT vs. object-oriented coding in C++/BEE Requirements definition Design planning Result packaging Data collection Data analysis
    16. 16. 1 6
    17. 17. 1 7  Two types of physicists (graduated students) involved › Informed programmers (Inf) – regular users of programming languages and they are used to program with the present analysis framework › Uninformed programmers (non-Inf) - regular users of programming languages and they are not used to program with the present analysis framework
    18. 18. 1 8  Features we wanted to have evaluated: › query steps in Pheasant vs. C++/BEE › › › › › › › expressing a decay specification of filtering conditions vertexing and the usage of user-defined functions aggregation path expression (navigation queries) expressing the result set the expressiveness of user-defined functions
    19. 19. 1 0   Our evaluation technique was tested with two individuals (two physics experts) in order to verify it and to test the teaching materials and questionnaires As time constrants and equipment turn out to be adequat there was no need to change prepared materials
    20. 20. 2 0     RQ1:Is querying with Pheasant more effective than with C++/BEE? RQ2:Is querying with Pheasant more efficient than with C++/BEE? RQ3:Are participants querying with Pheasant more confident on their performance than with C++/BEE? Our goal is to: › analyze the performance of Pheasant programmers plug-ins › for the purpose of comparing it with a baseline alternative (C++/BEE) › with respect to the efficiency, effectiveness and confidence of defying queries in Pheasant › from the point of view of a researcher trying to assess the Pheasant DSL, › in the context of a case study on selected queries.
    21. 21.       H1null Using Pheasant vs. C++/BEE has no impact on the 2 1 effectiveness of querying the analysis framework H1alt Using Pheasant vs. C++/BEE has a significant impact on the effectiveness of querying the analysis framework H2null Using Pheasant vs. C++/BEE has no impact on the efficiency of querying the analysis framework H2alt Using Pheasant vs. C++/BEE has a significant impact on the efficiency of querying the analysis framework H3null Using Pheasant vs. C++/BEE has no impact on the confidence of querying the analysis framework H3alt Using Pheasant vs. C++/BEE has a significant impact on the confidence of querying the analysis framework
    22. 22. 2 2    We focus on presenting six examples, each focusing in some of the features we chose to evaluate Participants are asked to give themselves a mark for feeling of correctness of their trial Session take the time needed for each group to understand the examples
    23. 23. 2 3 Training and Exam sessions
    24. 24. 2 4    Every participant has four queries, specified in English, to be rewritten in previously learned language Subjects makes self-assessment of his replay rating his feeling of correctness Example: › Build the decay of a D0 particle to a Kaon Pion
    25. 25. 2 5 Query solution in Pheasant Query solution in C++/BEE (pseudo code based on real code)
    26. 26. 2 6  The participants were asked to judge the intuitiveness, suitability and effectiveness of the query language. The goal was to evaluate: › Overall reactions › Query language constructs  Affect to query language was rated by: › Query language constructs › Participants’ comments
    27. 27. 2 7     Results obtained with Pheasant were clearly better then those with C++/BEE Pheasant allowed non-programmers to correctly define their queries. The evaluation also showed a considerable speedup in the query definition by all the groups of users that were using Pheasant The feed-back obtained from the users was that it is more comfortable to use Pheasant than with the alternative.
    28. 28. 2 8
    29. 29. 2 9
    30. 30. Mean confidence / query Non - Inf Inf C++/BEE 1,04 Pheasant 4,75 C++/BEE 4,88 Pheasant 4,83 3 0
    31. 31. 3 1 Usability evaluation can be an accurate activity, since precisely defined DSLs can target specific Contexts of Use, inside a particular set of user profiles  Instantiate our proposed DSL evaluation process in the construction of new DSLs which will take into account the Usability aspect from the very beginning of their development  From this instantiation, we expect to devise languages and tools that can effectively and automatically measure the identified Usability factors 

    ×