Check out the new USENIX Web site. next up previous
Next: Staging in MetaML Up: DSL Implementation Using Staging Previous: Abstract


We outline an improved method for the design and implementation of Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs). The method builds upon our experience with staged programming using the staged programming language METAML [27, 26]. The method also incorporates ideas from other researchers in the areas of modular language design [28, 24, 12], correct compiler generation [15, 19, 18, 16, 10], and partial evaluation [8, 13]. While relying on recent advances in functional programming (such as higher-order type constructors, and local polymorphism), it is applicable to all kinds of languages, not just applicative ones. The method unifies many of these ideas into a coherent process.

A problem with the DSL approach to software construction is its cost. Realizing a DSL requires an implementation. Such implementations are large and expensive to produce. So, unless many solutions are required, it may not pay to build a compiler or other implementation mechanism. DSL implementation is also conceptually hard. Most software engineers are not comfortable taking on the task of language design and implementation. Even if they are, language implementation is a difficult, complex process that does not easily scale. An implementation for a simple language often does not scale as the language evolves to meet newer demands. Lowering the cost of DSL implementations, and making good ones more manageable, will make the DSL approach applicable to a broader domain of problems.

Our approach to solving these problems is to apply new methods of abstraction such as monads [28, 31] and staging [27, 26] to the implementation of DSLs. This makes the effort required to build a compiler for a DSL reusable and spreads the cost over several DSLs. To make language implementation manageable for the masses, there must exist good rules of thumb for language implementation. One way to accomplish this is by elaborating a step by step method that splits the labor into well-defined steps, each with a relatively small amount of work. In our method, each step deals with an orthogonal design decision. By using good abstraction principles, our method partitions each design decision into a separate code module. In addition, our method makes explicit the propositions that must be proved to show the correctness of the compiler with respect to its semantics.

Our method comprises the following steps. First, construct the denotational semantics as an interpreter in a functional language. Second, capture the effects of the language, and the environment in which the target language must run, in a monad. Then rewrite the interpreter in a monadic style. Third, stage the interpreter using meta-programming techniques. This staging is similar to the staging of interpreters using a partial evaluator, but is explicit rather than implicit, since the programmer places the annotations directly, rather than using an automatic binding time analysis to discover where they should be placed. This leaves programmers in complete control, and they can limit what appears in the residual program. Fourth, the resulting program is both a data-structure and a program, so it can be both directly executed and analyzed. This analysis can include both source to source transformations, or translation into another form (i.e. intermediate code or assembly language). Because the programmer has complete control over the earlier steps, the structure of the residual program is highly constrained, and this final translation can be a trivial task.

Staging of interpreters using partial evaluation has been done before [1, 5]. The contribution of this paper is to show that this can all be done in a single program. A system incorporating staging as a first class feature of a language is a powerful tool. While using such a tool to write a compiler the source language can be given semantics, it can be staged, translated, and optimized all in a single paradigm. It requires neither additional processes nor tools, and is under the complete control of the programmer; all the while maintaining a direct link between the semantics of interpreter and those of the compiler.

next up previous
Next: Staging in MetaML Up: DSL Implementation Using Staging Previous: Abstract

Zine-El-abidine Benaissa
Wed Jul 21 11:46:59 PDT 1999