Dynamic Languages and Applications. Report on the Workshop Dyla 07 at ECOOP 2007

Following last two years’ workshop on dynamic languages at the ECOOP conference, the Dyla 2007 workshop was a successful and popular event. As its name implies, the workshop’s focus was on dynamic languages and their applications. Topics and discussions at the workshop included macro expansion mechanisms, extension of the method lookup algorithm, language interpretation, reflexivity and languages for mobile ad hoc networks. The main goal of this workshop was to bring together different dynamic language communities and favouring cross communities interaction. Dyla 2007 was organised as a full day meeting, partly devoted to presentation of submitted position papers and partly devoted to tool demonstration. All accepted papers can be downloaded from the workshop’s web site. In this report, we provide an overview of the presentations and a summary of discussions.

Why Smalltalk Wins the Host Languages Shootout

Integration of multiple languages into each other and into an existing development environment is a difficult task. As a consequence, developers often end up using only internal DSLs that strictly rely on the constraints imposed by the host language. Infrastructures do exist to mix languages, but they often do it at the price of losing the development tools of the host language. Instead of inventing a completely new infrastructure, our solution is to integrate new languages deeply into the existing host environment and reuse the infrastructure offered by it. In this paper we show why Smalltalk is the best practical choice for such a host language.

Comparison of accuracy captured by different controlled languages in oral pathology diagnoses.

This project was comparing the accuracy of capturing the oral pathology diagnoses among different coding systems. 55 diagnoses were selected for comparison among 5 coding systems. The results of accuracy in capturing oral diagnoses are: AFIP (96.4%), followed by Read 99 (85.5%), SNOMED 98 (74.5%), ICD-9 (43.6%), and CDT-3 (14.5%). It shows that the currently used coding systems, ICD-9 and CDT-3, were inadequate, whereas the AFIP coding system captured the majority of oral diagnoses. In conclusion, the most commonly used medical and dental coding systems lack terms for the diagnosis of oral and dental conditions.