Potentially a tierless language both reduces the development effort and improves correctness as correct interoperation and communication is automatically generated by the compiler. A tierless language may, however, introduce other problems. How expressive is the language? That is, can it readily express the required functionality? How maintainable is the software? Is the generated code efficient in terms of time, space, and power?
-This paper reports a systematic comparative evaluation of two tierless language technologies for \gls{IOT} stacks: one targeting resource-constrained microcontrollers, and the other resource-rich supersensors. The basis of the comparison is four implementations of a typical smart campus \gls{IOT} stack \citep{hentschel_supersensors:_2016}. Two implementations are conventional tiered \gls{PYTHON}-based stacks: \gls{PRS} and \gls{PWS}. The other two implementations are tierless: \gls{CRS} and \gls{CWS}. Our work makes the following research contributions, and the key results are summarised, discussed, and quantified in \cref{sec_t4t:Conclusion}.
+This chapter reports a systematic comparative evaluation of two tierless language technologies for \gls{IOT} stacks: one targeting resource-constrained microcontrollers, and the other resource-rich supersensors. The basis of the comparison is four implementations of a typical smart campus \gls{IOT} stack \citep{hentschel_supersensors:_2016}. Two implementations are conventional tiered \gls{PYTHON}-based stacks: \gls{PRS} and \gls{PWS}. The other two implementations are tierless: \gls{CRS} and \gls{CWS}. Our work makes the following research contributions, and the key results are summarised, discussed, and quantified in \cref{sec_t4t:Conclusion}.
\begin{description}
\item[C1] We show that \emph{tierless languages have the potential to significantly reduce the development effort for \gls{IOT} systems}.\label{enum:c1}
\end{description}
-However, a tiered architecture poses significant challenges for developers of \gls{IOT} and other software. The tiered \gls{PYTHON} \gls{PRS} and \gls{PWS} stacks exhibit these challenges, and we analyse these in detail later in the paper.
+However, a tiered architecture poses significant challenges for developers of \gls{IOT} and other software. The tiered \gls{PYTHON} \gls{PRS} and \gls{PWS} stacks exhibit these challenges, and we analyse these in detail later in the chapter.
\begin{description}[style=sameline]
\item[Polyglot development] the developer must be fluent in all the languages and components in the stack, known as being a full-stack developer for web applications \citep{mazzei2018full}. That is, the developer must correctly use multiple languages that have different paradigms, i.e.\ manage significant \emph{semantic friction} \citep{ireland_classification_2009}. For example the \gls{PWS} developer must integrate components written in seven languages with two paradigms (\cref{sec_t4t:interoperation}).
\section{Task-oriented and \IOT{} programming in Clean}
-To make this paper self-contained we provide a concise overview of \gls{CLEAN}, \gls{TOP}, and \gls{IOT} programming in \gls{ITASK} and \gls{MTASK}. The minor innovations reported here are the interface to the \gls{IOT} sensors, and the \gls{CLEAN} port for the Raspberry Pi.
+To make this chapter self-contained we provide a concise overview of \gls{CLEAN}, \gls{TOP}, and \gls{IOT} programming in \gls{ITASK} and \gls{MTASK}. The minor innovations reported here are the interface to the \gls{IOT} sensors, and the \gls{CLEAN} port for the Raspberry Pi.
\Gls{CLEAN} is a statically typed \gls{FP} language similar to \gls{HASKELL}: both languages are pure and non-strict \citep{achten_clean_2007}.
A key difference is how state is handled: \gls{HASKELL} typically embeds stateful actions in the \haskellinline{IO} Monad \citep{peyton_jones_imperative_1993,wiki:IO}.
\subsection{Future work}
-This paper is a technology comparison between tiered and tierless technologies. The metrics reported, such as code size, numbers of source code files, and of paradigms are only indirect, although widely accepted, measures of development effort. A more convincing evaluation of tierless technologies could be provided by conducting a carefully designed and substantial user study, e.g.\ using N-version programming.
+This chapter is a technology comparison between tiered and tierless technologies. The metrics reported, such as code size, numbers of source code files, and of paradigms are only indirect, although widely accepted, measures of development effort. A more convincing evaluation of tierless technologies could be provided by conducting a carefully designed and substantial user study, e.g.\ using N-version programming.
A study that implemented common benchmarks or a case study in multiple tierless \gls{IOT} languages would provide additional evidence for the generality of the tierless approach. Such a study would enable the demonstration and comparison of alternative design decisions within tierless languages, as outlined in \cref{sec_t4t:characteristics}.
repositories / phd-thesis.git / blobdiff