Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
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.
Sanjiv Narayan and Daniel D Gajski, “Features Supporting System-Level Specification in HDLs”, pp. 540–545, European Design Automation Conference, September 1993.
Alan M. Davis, “A Comparison of Techniques for the Specification of External System behaviour”, Communications of the ACM, pp. 1098–1115, September 1988.
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.
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.
J.Armstrong, R.Virding, M.Williams, Concurrent Programming in Erlang, Prentice Hall, 1993.
M. De Prycker, Asynchronous Transfer Mode solutions for broadband ISDN, Series in Computer Communications and Networking, Ellis Horwood 1991.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A. Olsen, O Færgemand, B. Moller-Pedersen, R. Reed, and J.R.W Smith, Systems Engineering with SDL-92, North Holland, 1995.
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.
J. Peterson and K. Hammond, editors, Haskell Report 1.4, http://haskell.org/.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jantsch, A. et al. (2001). A Comparison of Six Languages for System Level Description of Telecom Applications. In: Mermet, J. (eds) Electronic Chips & Systems Design Languages. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3326-6_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3326-6_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-4884-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-3326-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive