Michael Marcotty

dblp:05/16 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 1977
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 2 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Programming languages and type systems · 75% Requirements engineering and software design · 25%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automata and formal languages · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design
formal specification
0.011977
The Definition Mechanism for Standard PL/I · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1977
Programming languages and type systems
language semantics
0.011977
The Definition Mechanism for Standard PL/I · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1977
Programming languages and type systems
language specification
0.011977
The Definition Mechanism for Standard PL/I · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1977
Programming languages and type systems › language semantics › formal semantics
operational semantics
0.011977
The Definition Mechanism for Standard PL/I · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1977

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

metalanguage · 0.0abstract machine model · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1977 The Definition Mechanism for Standard PL/I
abstract
The mechanism used to define the programming language PL/I in the recently adopted American National Standard is presented. This method provides a rigorous though semiformal specification of the language. If uses the model of translation of programs into an abstract form to define the context-free and context-sensitive syntax. The semantics are defined by the interpretation of the abstract form of the program on a hypothetical machine. The method and metalanguage are presented along with several small examples to illustrate the definition technique's features. The complete definition process is shown by the definition of a small example language.
Michael Marcotty, Frederick G. Sayward
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1
1974 Handling Asynchronous Interrupts in a PL/1-like Language
abstract
Abstract A method of handling asynchronous interrupts, which are defined to be events, in a highlevel, block‐structured language is described. The language facilities are based on PL/1 conditions. The functions of an interrupt handler and its relationship with the execution time support for the language are defined and discussed. The development of the facilities being presented is also described. Solutions to design problems and implemenation details are stated. The use and benefits of the mechanism are discussed.
James L. Elshoff, Robert Beckermeyer, John Dill, Michael Marcotty
Softw. Pract. Exp.4
1974 The Systems Programming Language, Malus
abstract
Abstract This paper reports on the design and development of a high level language, Malus, for use in implementing a time‐sharing system. Emphasized are the ways that the language and its compiler accommodate the specialized requirements of systems programming and programmers. Among these are the need to generate highly efficient object code, to allow inter‐programmer communication by program self‐documentation, and to define and organize system tables and data. In addition, the Malus compiler is highly modular; thus the language may be modified or augmented in response to user needs unforeseen during langauge design. Systems programs cannot be machine independent and Malus allows explicit control of emitted code when an application requires particular efficiency or use of privileged instructions. There is also a facility allowing nested redefinition of identifiers. Efficient storage management and data access is effected by the availability of based structures, a register storage class and built‐in functions to facilitate their use. Malus is evaluated both in terms of some general criteria for systems implementation languages and by an appraisal of user reactions. While this assessment shows a few areas where the language might be improved, it is felt that Malus is a valuable and effective tool for systems implementation.
Michael Marcotty, Henrik A. Schutz
Softw. Pract. Exp.1