A Comparison of Six Languages for System Level Description of Telecom Applications
Based on a systematic evaluation method with a large number of criteria we compare six languages with respect to the suitability as a system specification and description language for telecom applications. The languages under evaluation are VHDL, C++, SDL, Haskell, Erlang, and ProGram. The evaluation method allows to give specific emphasis on particular aspects in a controlled way, which we use to make separate comparisons for pure software systems, pure hardware systems and mixed HW/SW systems.
KeywordsSpecification Document Suitability Index Telecom Application Tool Maturity Language Evaluation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- M. A. Ardis, J. A. Chaves, L. J. Jagadeesan, P. Mataga, C. Puchol, M. G. Staskauskas, J. Von Olnhausen, “A Framework for Evaluating Specification Methods for Reactive Systems — Experience Report”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, June 1996.Google Scholar
- Sanjiv Narayan and Daniel D Gajski, “Features Supporting System-Level Specification in HDLs”, pp. 540–545, European Design Automation Conference, September 1993.Google Scholar
- Alan M. Davis, “A Comparison of Techniques for the Specification of External System behaviour”, Communications of the ACM, pp. 1098–1115, September 1988.Google Scholar
- A.Nordström, H.Pettersson, An Evaluation of Graphical HDL Tools with Aspects on Design Methodology and Reusability, Ericsson, Sweden, Report JR/M-97: 1676, 1997.Google Scholar
- Claus Lewerentz and Thomas Lindner, ed., Case Study “Production Cell”: A Comparative Study in Formal Software Development, Forschungszentrum Informatik, Universität Karlsruhe, report no. FZI-Publication 1/94, Karlsruhe, Germany, 1994.Google Scholar
- J.Armstrong, R.Virding, M.Williams, Concurrent Programming in Erlang, Prentice Hall, 1993.Google Scholar
- M. De Prycker, Asynchronous Transfer Mode solutions for broadband ISDN, Series in Computer Communications and Networking, Ellis Horwood 1991.Google Scholar
- ITU-T Telecommunication Standardization sector of ITU Recommendation I.150, I.211, 1.311, I.321, I.327, I.361, I.362,1.363, L413, I.432, 1. 610.Google Scholar
- A. Jantsch, S. Kumar, A. Hemani, “The Rugby Model: A Framework for the Study of Modelling, Analysis, and Synthesis Concepts in Electronic Systems”, Proceedings of Design Automation and Test in Europe (DATE), 1999.Google Scholar
- A. Jantsch, S. Kumar, I. Sander, B. Svantesson, J. Oberg, and A. Hemani, Evaluation of Languages for Specification of Telecom Systems, report no. TRITA-ESD-1998–04, Department of Electronics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 1998.Google Scholar
- A. Jantsch and I. Sander, “On the Roles of Functions and Objects in System Specification”, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Hardware/Software Codesign, 2000.Google Scholar
- A. Olsen, O Færgemand, B. Moller-Pedersen, R. Reed, and J.R.W Smith, Systems Engineering with SDL-92, North Holland, 1995.Google Scholar
- J. Oberg, ProGram: A Grammar-Based Method for Specification and Hardware Synthesis of Communication Protocols, PhD thesis, Dep. of Electronics, Royal Institute of Technology, TRITA-ESD-1999–03, 1999.Google Scholar
- J. Peterson and K. Hammond, editors, Haskell Report 1.4, http://haskell.org/.