Abstract Context Dedicated model transformation languages are claimed to provide many benefits over the use of general purpose languages for developing model transformations. However, the actual advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of model transformation languages are poorly understood empirically. There is little knowledge and even less empirical assessment about what advantages and disadvantages hold in which cases and where they originate from. In a prior interview study, we elicited expert opinions on what advantages result from what factors surrounding model transformation languages as well as a number of moderating factors that moderate the influence. Objective We aim to quantitatively asses the interview results to confirm or reject the influences and moderation effects posed by different factors. We further intend to gain insights into how valuable different factors are to the discussion so that future studies can draw on these data for designing targeted and relevant studies. Method We gather data on the factors and quality attributes using an online survey. To analyse the data and examine the hypothesised influences and moderations, we use universal structure modelling based on a structural equation model. Universal structure modelling produces significance values and path coefficients for each hypothesised and modelled interdependence between factors and quality attributes that can be used to confirm or reject correlation and to weigh the strength of influence present. Results We analyzed 113 responses. The results show that the MTL capabilities Tracing and Reuse Mechanisms are most important overall. Though the observed effects were generally 10 times lower than anticipated. Furthermore, we found that moderation effects need to be individually assessed for each influence on a quality attribute. The moderation effects of a single moderating variable vary significantly for each influence, with the strongest effects being 1000 times higher than the weakest. Conclusion The empirical assessment of MTLs is a complex topic that cannot be solved by looking at a single stand-alone factor. Our results provide clear indication that evaluation should consider transformations of different sizes and use-cases that go beyond mapping one elements attributes to another. Language development on the other hand should focus on providing practical, transformation specific reuse mechanisms that allow MTLs to excel in areas such as maintainability and productivity compared to GPLs.

Model transformation languages are domain-specific languages used to define transformations of models. These transformations consist of the translation from one modeling formalism into another or just the updating of a given model. Such transformations are often described declaratively and are often implemented based on very small models that cover the language of the input model. As a result, transformation developers are often unable to assess the time required to transform a larger model. Hence, we propose a prediction approach based on machine learning which uses a set of model characteristics as input and provides a prediction of the execution time of a transformation defined in the Atlas Transformation Language (ATL). In our previous work (Groner et al., 2023), we already showed that support vector regression in combination with a model characterization based on the number of model elements, the number of references, and the number of attributes is the best choice in terms of usability and prediction accuracy for the transformations considered in our experiments. Our previous approach cannot predict the performance of transformations correctly which transform attributes whose values have an arbitrary size, like string attributes. Therefore, we investigate in this work whether an extension of our feature sets that describes the average size of string attributes can help to overcome this weakness. Our results show that the random forest approach in combination with model characterizations based on the number of model elements, the number of references, the number of attributes, and the average size of string attributes filtered by the 85th percentile of their variance is the best choice in terms of the simple way to describe a model and the quality of the obtained prediction. With this combination, we obtained a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 5.07% over all modules and a MAPE of 4.82% over all modules excluding the transformation for which our previous approach failed. Whereas, we obtained previously a MAPE of 38.48% over all modules and a MAPE of 4.45% over all modules excluding the transformation for which our previous approach failed.

Model transformation languages are special-purpose languages, which are designed to define transformations as comfortably as possible, i.e., often in a declarative way. Typically, developers create their transformations based on small input models which systematically cover the language of the input models. This makes it difficult for the developers to estimate how the transformations would perform for a large and diverse set of input models.

Abstract Context Model driven development envisages the use of model transformations to evolve models. Model transformation languages, developed for this task, are touted with many benefits over general purpose programming languages. However, a large number of these claims have not yet been substantiated. They are also made without the context necessary to be able to critically assess their merit or built meaningful empirical studies around them. Objective The objective of our work is to elicit the reasoning, influences and background knowledge that lead people to assume benefits or drawbacks of model transformation languages. Method We conducted a large-scale interview study involving 56 participants from research and industry. Interviewees were presented with claims about model transformation languages and were asked to provide reasons for their assessment thereof. We qualitatively analysed the responses to find factors that influence the properties of model transformation languages as well as explanations as to how exactly they do so. Results Our interviews show, that general purpose expressiveness of GPLs, domain specific capabilities of MTLs as well as tooling all have strong influences on how people view properties of model transformation languages. Moreover, the Choice of MTL , the Use Case for which a transformation should be developed as well as the Skill s of involved stakeholders have a moderating effect on the influences, by changing the context to consider. Conclusion There is a broad body of experience, that suggests positive and negative influences for properties of MTLs. Our data suggests, that much needs to be done in order to convey the viability of model transformation languages. Efforts to provide more empirical substance need to be undergone and lacklustre language capabilities and tooling need to be improved upon. We suggest several approaches for this that can be based on the results of the presented study.

Abstract Model transformations are among the key concepts of model-driven engineering (MDE), and dedicated model transformation languages (MTLs) emerged with the popularity of the MDE pssaradigm about 15 to 20 years ago. MTLs claim to increase the ease of development of model transformations by abstracting from recurring transformation aspects and hiding complex semantics behind a simple and intuitive syntax. Nonetheless, MTLs are rarely adopted in practice, there is still no empirical evidence for the claim of easier development, and the argument of abstraction deserves a fresh look in the light of modern general purpose languages (GPLs) which have undergone a significant evolution in the last two decades. In this paper, we report about a study in which we compare the complexity and size of model transformations written in three different languages, namely (i) the Atlas Transformation Language (ATL), (ii) Java SE5 (2004–2009), and (iii) Java SE14 (2020); the Java transformations are derived from an ATL specification using a translation schema we developed for our study. In a nutshell, we found that some of the new features in Java SE14 compared to Java SE5 help to significantly reduce the complexity of transformations written in Java by as much as 45%. At the same time, however, the relative amount of complexity that stems from aspects that ATL can hide from the developer, which is about 40% of the total complexity, stays about the same. Furthermore we discovered that while transformation code in Java SE14 requires up to 25% less lines of code, the number of words written in both versions stays about the same. And while the written number of words stays about the same their distribution throughout the code changes significantly. Based on these results, we discuss the concrete advancements in newer Java versions. We also discuss to which extent new language advancements justify writing transformations in a general purpose language rather than a dedicated transformation language. We further indicate potential avenues for future research on the comparison of MTLs and GPLs in a model transformation context.

Abstract There exists a plethora of claims about the advantages and disadvantages of model transformation languages compared to general-purpose programming languages. With this work, we aim to create an overview over these claims in the literature and systematize evidence thereof. For this purpose, we conducted a systematic literature review by following a systematic process for searching and selecting relevant publications and extracting data. We selected a total of 58 publications, categorized claims about model transformation languages into 14 separate groups and conceived a representation to track claims and evidence through the literature. From our results, we conclude that: (i) the current literature claims many advantages of model transformation languages but also points towards certain deficits and (ii) there is insufficient evidence for claimed advantages and disadvantages and (iii) there is a lack of research interest into the verification of claims.