Embedding Languages Without Breaking Tools

Domain-specific languages (DSLs) are increasingly used as embedded languages within general-purpose host languages. DSLs provide a compact, dedicated syntax for specifying parts of an application related to specialized domains. Unfortunately, such language extensions typically do not integrate well with the development tools of the host language. Editors, compilers and debuggers are either unaware of the extensions, or must be adapted at a non-trivial cost. We present a novel approach to embed DSLs into an existing host language by leveraging the underlying representation of the host language used by these tools. Helvetia is an extensible system that intercepts the compilation pipeline of the Smalltalk host language to seamlessly integrate language extensions. We validate our approach by case studies that demonstrate three fundamentally different ways to extend or adapt the host language syntax and semantics.

Embedding Spatial Software Visualization in the IDE: an Exploratory Study

Software visualization can be of great use for understanding and exploring a software system in an intuitive manner. Spatial representation of software is a promising approach of increasing interest. However, little is known about how developers interact with spatial visualizations that are embedded in the IDE. In this paper, we present a pilot study that explores the use of Software Cartography for program comprehension of an unknown system. We investigated whether developers establish a spatial memory of the system, whether clustering by topic offers a sound base layout, and how developers interact with maps. We report our results in the form of observations, hypotheses, and implications. Key findings are a) that developers made good use of the map to inspect search results and call graphs, and b) that developers found the base layout surprising and often confusing. We conclude with concrete advice for the design of embedded software maps

Speech understanding in quiet and in noise with the bone-anchored hearing aids Baha Compact and Baha Divino

CONCLUSIONS: Speech understanding is better with the Baha Divino than with the Baha Compact in competing noise from the rear. No difference was found for speech understanding in quiet. Subjectively, overall sound quality and speech understanding were rated better for the Baha Divino. OBJECTIVES: To compare speech understanding in quiet and in noise and subjective ratings for two different bone-anchored hearing aids: the recently developed Baha Divino and the Baha Compact. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven adults with bilateral conductive or mixed hearing losses who were users of a bone-anchored hearing aid were tested with the Baha Compact in quiet and in noise. Tests were repeated after 3 months of use with the Baha Divino. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two types of Baha for speech understanding in quiet when tested with German numbers and monosyllabic words at presentation levels between 50 and 80 dB. For speech understanding in noise, an advantage of 2.3 dB for the Baha Divino vs the Baha Compact was found, if noise was emitted from a loudspeaker to the rear of the listener and the directional microphone noise reduction system was activated. Subjectively, the Baha Divino was rated statistically significantly better in terms of overall sound quality.