Context-Free Grammar of a New Programming Language for Teaching and Learning
Learning how to be programmer and uralitize the programming languages are the crucial point in computer science education. Programming languages are used by the students to write the program. Any machine needs a program to behave artificially intelligent or to perform any specific task. Any computing device is a useless without these programs. As every program is written in some specific programming language. Researchers are putting efforts in devising new languages to meets the goals and requirements of the specific domain of the programs that is going to be written in that language. Every programming language has its own semantics, nuances, and syntax with its pros and cons. For the early stage programmers these language specific details including semantics and syntax are hard to memorize or to familiar with it. Teachers often witness that these language specific barriers e.g., tough and confusing syntax of the language give hard time to students. Students generally stuck in learning the syntax and unconsciously learning programming skills go in back ground. This paper is going to present a Context-Free Grammar of a new programming language for early stage programing learners. In this language the hard part of syntax is relaxed by bring it to something that is close to their day to day communication so that they concentrate on logic and not on syntax.
A. L. Guzman, “What is human-machine communication, anyway,” Human-machine Communication Rethinking: Communication Technology and ourselves, Peter Lang, Book, pp. 1–28, 2018.
M. Soeken, T. Haener and M. Roetteler, “Programming quantum computers using design automation,” in 2018 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE),Dresden, Germany, pp. 137–146, 2018.
D. Johnson and M. Ketel, “IoT: Application Protocols and Security,” International Journal of Computer Network & Information Security, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1–8, 2019, doi: 10.5815/ijcnis.2019.04.01.
K. Vinall and E. A. Hellmich, “Down the rabbit hole: Machine translation, metaphor, and instructor identity and agency,” Second Language Research & Practice, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 99-118, 2021.
N. G. S. S. L. States, “Next generation science standards: For states, by states,” Washington, DC, USA, Book, 2013, DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/18290.
S. Olson, Grand Challenges for Engineering: Imperatives, Prospects, and Priorities: Summary of a Forum. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 2016, DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/23440.
A. Juškevičiene, G. Stupuriene and T. Jevsikova, “Computational thinking development through physical computing activities in STEAM education,” Computer Applications in Engineering Education, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 175–190, 2021.
D. Proctor, “The social production of internet space: Affordance, programming, and virtuality,” Communication Theory, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 593–612, 2021.
R. Pereira, M. Couto, F. Ribeiro, R. Rua, J. Cunha et al., “Ranking programming languages by energy efficiency,” Science of Computer Programming, vol. 205, pp. 102609-102639, 2021.
O. Grljević and Z. Bošnjak, “Sentiment analysis of customer data,” Strategic Management, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 38–49, 2018, doi: 10.5937/straman1803038g.
F. Del Bonifro, M. Gabbrielli, A. Lategano and S. Zacchiroli, “Image-based many-language programming language identification,” PeerJ Computer Science, vol. 7, pp. e631-655, 2021.
A. M. Abubakar and A. A. Mustapha, “Newton’s Method Cubic Equation of State C++ Source Code for Iterative Volume Computation,” International Journal of Recent Engineering Science, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 12–22, 2021.
J.-S. Lee, Y.-W. Su and C.-C. Shen, “A comparative study of wireless protocols: Bluetooth, UWB, ZigBee, and Wi-Fi,” in IECON 2007-33rd Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Teipei, Taiwan, pp. 46–51, 2007.
J. Peterson, “Speaking ability progress of language learners in online and face-to-face courses,” Foreign Language Annals, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 27–49, 2021.
S. G Kochan, “Programming in C Third Edition,” Book, 2021.
X. Chen, D. Song and Y. Tian, “Latent execution for neural program synthesis beyond domain-specific languages,” Advance in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 1-13, 2021.
D. Pollak, V. Layka and A. Sacco, “DSL and Parser Combinator,” in Beginning Scala 3, Springer, pp. 237–245, 2022.
S. Höppner, T. Kehrer and M. Tichy, “Contrasting dedicated model transformation languages versus general purpose languages: a historical perspective on ATL versus Java based on complexity and size,” Software and Systems Modelling, vol. 21, pp. 1–33, 2021.
K. Faldu, A. Sheth, P. Kikani and H. Akbari, “KI-BERT: Infusing knowledge context for better language and domain understanding,” arXiv Prepr. arXiv2104.08145, vol. 2, pp. 1-10, 2021.
R. Liu, M. Gao, S. Ye and J. Zhang, “IGScript: an interaction grammar for scientific data presentation,” in Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama, Japan, pp. 1–13, 2021.
A. Van Deursen, P. Klint, and J. Visser, “Domain-specific languages: An annotated bibliography,” ACM Sigplan Notices, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 26–36, 2000.
S. Erdweg, P. G. Giarrusso and T. Rendel, “Language composition untangled,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth Workshop on Language Descriptions, Tools, and Applications, New York, USA, pp. 1–8, 2012.
N. Vasudevan and L. Tratt, “Comparative study of DSL tools,” Electronic Notes Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 264, no. 5, pp. 103–121, 2011.
L. M. do Nascimento, D. L. Viana, P. A. S. Neto, D. A. Martins, V. C. Garcia et al, “A systematic mapping study on domain-specific languages,” in The Seventh International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA 2012), Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 179–187, 2012.
M. Mernik, “Domain-specific languages: A systematic mapping study,” in International Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practice of Informatics, Limassol, Cyprus, pp. 464–472, 2017.
T. Kosar, S. Bohra and M. Mernik, “Domain-specific languages: A systematic mapping study,” Inormation and Software Technology, vol. 71, pp. 77–91, 2016.
J. Tanha, Y. Abdi, N. Samadi, N. Razzaghi and M. Asadpour, “Boosting methods for multi-class imbalanced data classification: an experimental review,” Journal of Big Data, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–47, 2020.
M. Mernik, J. Heering and A. M. Sloane, “When and how to develop domain-specific languages,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 316–344, 2005.
S. Erdweg, T. V. D. Storm, M. Volter, R. Bosman, W. R. Cook et al., “The state of the art in language workbenches,” in International Conference on Software Language Engineering, Indianapolis, USA, pp. 197–217, 2013.
S. Erdweg, T. V. D. Storm, M. Volter, R. Bosman, W. R. Cook et al., “Evaluating and comparing language workbenches: Existing results and benchmarks for the future,” Computer Languages, Systems & Structure, vol. 44, pp. 24–47, 2015.
P. N. Johnson-Laird, M. Bucciarelli, R. Mackiewicz and S. S. Khemlani, “Recursion in programs, thought, and language,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, pp. 1–25, 2021.
S. Olson, Grand Challenges for Engineering. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2016. doi: 10.17226/23440.
J. Hartmann, J. Huppertz, C. Schamp and M. Heitmann, “Comparing automated text classification methods,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 20–38, 2019.
H. M. Gualandi, “The Pallene Programming Language,” Ph. D. Dissertation. Pontifcia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, 2020.
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.