**Call for Papers**
10th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineering (SLE 2017)
23-24 October 2017, Vancouver, Canada
(Co-located with SPLASH 2017)
General chair:
   Benoit Combemale, University of Rennes 1, France
Program co-chairs:
   Marjan Mernik, University of Maribor, Slovenia
   Bernhard Rumpe, RWTH Aachen University, Germany
Artifact evaluation chairs
   Tanja Mayerhofer, TU Wien, Austria
   Laurence Tratt, King’s College London, UK
Follow us on twitter:
Software Language Engineering (SLE) is the application of systematic, disciplined, and measurable approaches to the development, use, deployment, and maintenance of software languages. The term “software language” is used broadly, and includes: general-purpose programming languages; domain-specific languages (e.g. BPMN, Simulink, Modelica); modeling and metamodeling languages (e.g. SysML and UML); data models and ontologies (e.g. XML-based and OWL-based languages and vocabularies).
### Important Dates
Fri 2 Jun 2017 – Abstract Submission
Fri 9 Jun 2017 – Paper Submission
Fri 4 Aug 2017 – Author Notification
Thu 10 Aug 2017 – Artifact Submission
Fri 1 Sep 2017 – Artifact Notification
Fri 8 Sep 2017 – Camera Ready Deadline
Sun 22 Oct – SLE workshops
Mon 23 Oct – Tue 24 Oct 2017 – SLE Conference
### Topics of Interest
SLE aims to be broad-minded and inclusive about relevance and scope. We solicit high-quality contributions in areas ranging from theoretical and conceptual contributions to tools, techniques, and frameworks in the domain of language engineering. Topics relevant to SLE cover generic aspects of software languages development rather than aspects of engineering a specific language. In particular, SLE is interested in principled engineering approaches and techniques in the following areas:
* Language Design and Implementation
   * Approaches and methodologies for language design
   * Static semantics (e.g., design rules, well-formedness constraints)
   * Techniques for behavioral / executable semantics
   * Generative approaches (incl. code synthesis, compilation)
   * Meta-languages, meta-tools, language workbenches
* Language Validation
   * Verification and formal methods for languages
   * Testing techniques for languages
   * Simulation techniques for languages
* Language Integration and Composition
   * Coordination of heterogeneous languages and tools
   * Mappings between languages (incl. transformation languages)
   * Traceability between languages
   * Deployment of languages to different platforms
* Language Maintenance
   * Software language reuse
   * Language evolution
   * Language families and variability
* Domain-specific approaches for any aspects of SLE (design, implementation, validation, maintenance)
* Empirical evaluation and experience reports of language engineering tools
   * User studies evaluating usability
   * Performance benchmarks
   * Industrial applications
### Types of Submissions
* **Research papers**: These should report a substantial research contribution to SLE or successful application of SLE techniques or both. Full paper submissions must not exceed 12 pages including bibliography in ACM SIGPLAN conference style (
* **Tool papers**: Because of SLE’s interest in tools, we seek papers that present software tools related to the field of SLE. Selection criteria include originality of the tool, its innovative aspects, and relevance to SLE. Any of the SLE topics of interest are appropriate areas for tool demonstrations. Submissions must provide a tool description of 4 pages including bibliography in ACM SIGPLAN conference style (, and a demonstration outline including screenshots of up to 6 pages. Tool demonstrations must have the keywords “Tool Demo” or “Tool Demonstration” in the title. The 4-page tool description will, if the demonstration is accepted, be published in the proceedings. The 6-page demonstration outline will be used by the program committee only for evaluating the submission.
* **Industrial papers**: These should describe real-world application scenarios of SLE in industry, explained in their context with an analysis of the challenges that were overcome and the lessons which the audience can learn from this experience. Industry paper submissions must not exceed 6 pages including bibliography in ACM SIGPLAN conference style (
* **New ideas / vision papers**: New ideas papers should describe new, non-conventional SLE research approaches that depart from standard practice. They are intended to describe well-defined research ideas that are at an early stage of investigation. Vision papers are intended to present new unifying theories about existing SLE research that can lead to the development of new technologies or approaches. New ideas / vision papers must not exceed 4 pages including bibliography in ACM SIGPLAN conference style (
### Artifact evaluation
Authors of accepted papers at SLE 2017 are encouraged to submit their experiment results used for underpinning research statements to an artifact evaluation process. This submission is voluntary and will not influence the final decision regarding the papers.
Papers that go through the Artifact Evaluation process successfully receive a seal of approval printed on the first page of the paper in the proceedings. Authors of papers with accepted artifacts are encouraged to make these materials publicly available upon publication of the proceedings, by including them as “source materials” in the ACM Digital Library.
### Publications
All submitted papers will be reviewed by at least three members of the program committee. All accepted papers, including tool papers, industrial papers and new ideas / vision papers will be published in ACM Digital Library.
Selected accepted papers will be invited to a special issue of the Computer Languages, Systems and Structures (COMLAN) journal.
### Awards
* **Distinguished paper**: Award for most notable paper, as determined by the PC chairs based on the recommendations of the program committee.
* **Distinguished reviewer**: Award for distinguished reviewer, as determined by the PC chairs using feedback from the authors.
* **Distinguished artifact**: Award for the artifact most significantly exceeding expectations, as determined by the AEC chairs based on the recommendations of the artifact evaluation committee.
### Program Committee
Marjan Mernik (co-chair), University of Maribor, Slovenia
Bernhard Rumpe (co-chair), RWTH Aachen University, Germany
Mark van den Brand, TU Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Ruth Breu, University of Innsbruck, Austria
Jordi Cabot, ICREA, Spain
Walter Cazzola, University of Milan, Italy
Marsha Chechik, University of Toronto, Canada
Tony Clark, Middlesex University, UK
Tom Dinkelaker, Ericsson, Germany
Bernd Fischer, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
Sebastian Gerard, CEA, France
Jeff Gray, University of Alabama, USA
Esther Guerra, Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain
Michael Homer, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Ralf Lämmel, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany
Tihamer Levendovszky, Microsoft, USA
Gunter Mussbacher, McGill University, Canada
Terence Parr, University of San Francisco, USA
Jaroslav Porubän, University of Košice, Slovakia
Jan Ringert, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Julia Rubin, University of British Columbia, Canada
Tony Sloane, Macquarie University, Australia
Eugene Syriani, University of Montreal, Canada
Emma Söderberg, Google, Denmark
Eric Van Wyk, University of Minnesota, USA
Jurgen Vinju, CWI, Netherlands
Eric Walkingshaw, Oregon State University, USA
Andreas Wortmann, RWTH Aachen University, Germany
Tian Zhang, Nanjing University, China
### Contact
For any question, please contact the organizers via email:

Eliot gave a terrific presentation about the current state of the community and what we might do to improve it.

Evelyn (Lin) Ostrom


Eight principles for managing a commons

  1. Clearly defined boundaries
  2. Proportional equivalence between benefits and costs
  3. Collective choice arrangements
  4. Monitoring
  5. Graduated sanctions
  6. Fast and fair conflict resolutions
  7. Local autonomy
  8. Polycentric governance

Editorial: by Ron Teitelbaum follows

Eliot gave the presentation to help get the discussion going (it’s not the start of the conversation either, there are earlier efforts like the Pharo Consortium) this Article is part of that discussion.

My take on the conversation is that there are really two aspects of what Eliot is discussing.

First that some sort of economic organization that helps Smalltalk is needed and that the organization should be used to help both programmers and customers.  It seems to me that a Smalltalk Guild could be set up to do just that.  It would be a place for customers to find certified developers with access to a group of people (other guild members) that can solve difficult problems if they get stuck.  It could also be a place where members who make over a certain amount of money could get proportional benefits.  As a developer. I would probably join such a guild and as a customer, I would love to have a place to go which could help me solve some programming issues.

Second that we need to have better visibility, coordination, and cooperation.  The cost of coordination using technology is falling fast.  Having a site that pairs tasks with developers, shows developers guild certifications, allows for customer and developer ratings and comments, highlights training materials and growth paths, and generally allows communities to form and disband around specific areas funded by companies or the guild itself would fundamentally change how we organize and grow the community.

To illustrate let’s say we form a Smalltalk Guild.  Members pay $10 a year to join + %10 of what they make on jobs they get through the Guild Jobs.  Companies can also join the guild and pay $100 per year and pay %10 in addition to what they pay for a job if they hire a Guild member to do the work.  (These are just made up figures I have no idea if they would actually work and some study would be needed to figure that out).  As a group, the Guild can provide Training for new members, create certification levels and growth plans.  The incentive for the group is that as members grow and make more money everyone benefits, there is an incentive to make sure people are qualified, can do the work, and actually get work instead of doing nothing (like java programming).  Users that contribute over 10k to the guild (earn 90K) can get benefits if they are out of work, or maybe healthcare on a group plan, some form of compensation which of course would be less than they contribute + generate in customer fees and would be decided by the Guild as Eliot says 0.N/X.  This gives the best guild members an incentive to stay with the guild and to feel like the guild is helping them provide some basic needs and it allows the guild to acknowledge the contributions the member is putting in to help the entire group.  The money could also be used to benefit the Guild.  To pay for someone’s training or certification, to increase visibility, to look for donors, find new customers, invest in new training materials, new conferences, courses, or even develop technology like the VM or application frameworks based on the group’s collective choices.

Gilad Bracha – Utopia And Dystopia: Smalltalk And The Wider World

Many more videos available here:

Squeak Turns 20!

31 October, 2016

Please Donate to Squeak!

Craig Latta writes:

Hi all–

Happy 20th birthday to us! It was twenty years ago that Dan Ingalls and the rest of Alan Kay’s team announced Squeak to the world. You really changed things with this run at the fence. 🙂  Thanks again!



Back to the Future

The Story of Squeak, A Practical Smalltalk Written in Itself


Dan Ingalls Ted Kaehler John Maloney Scott Wallace Alan Kay




7th Workshop on the Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools (PLATEAU)

Co-located with SPLASH 2016

Amsterdam, Netherlands



Programming languages exist to enable programmers to develop software effectively. But how efficiently programmers can write software depends on the usability of the languages and tools that they develop with. The aim of this workshop is to discuss methods, metrics and techniques for evaluating the usability of languages and language tools. The supposed benefits of such languages and tools cover a large space, including making programs easier to read, write, and maintain; allowing programmers to write more flexible and powerful programs; and restricting programs to make them more safe and secure.

PLATEAU gathers the intersection of researchers in the programming language, programming tool, and human-computer interaction communities to share their research and discuss the future of evaluation and usability of programming languages and tools.


Some particular areas of interest are:

  • empirical studies of programming languages
  • methodologies and philosophies behind language and tool evaluation
  • software design metrics and their relations to the underlying language
  • user studies of language features and software engineering tools
  • visual techniques for understanding programming languages
  • critical comparisons of programming paradigms
  • tools to support evaluating programming languages
  • psychology of programming
  • domain specific language (e.g. database languages, security/privacy languages, architecture description languages) usability and evaluation

PLATEAU encourages submissions of three types of papers:

Research and position papers: We encourage papers that describe work-in-progress or recently completed work based on the themes and goals of the workshop or related topics, report on experiences gained, question accepted wisdom, raise challenging open problems, or propose speculative new approaches. We will accept two types of papers: research papers up to 8 pages in length; and position papers up to 2 pages in length.

Hypotheses papers: Hypotheses papers explicitly identify beliefs of the research community or software industry about how a programming language, programming language feature, or programming language tool affects programming practice. Hypotheses can be collected from mailing lists, blog posts, paper introductions, developer forums, or interviews. Papers should clearly document the source(s) of each hypothesis and discuss the importance, use, and relevance of the hypotheses on research or practice. In addition, we invite language designers to share some of the usability reasoning that influenced their work. These will serve as an important first step in advancing our understanding of how language design supports programmers.Papers may also, but are not required to, review evidence for or against the hypotheses identified. Hypotheses papers can be up to 4 pages in length.

Submission site: PLATEAU papers should be submitted via HotCRP.

Format: Submissions should use the SIGPLAN Proceedings Format (, 10 point font. Note that by default the SIGPLAN Proceedings Format produces papers in 9 point font. If you are formatting your paper using LaTeX, you will need to set the 10pt option in the \documentclass command. If you are formatting your paper using Word, you may wish to use the provided Word template that supports this font size. Please include page numbers in your submission. Setting the preprint option in the LaTeX \documentclass command generates page numbers. Please also ensure that your submission is legible when printed on a black and white printer. In particular, please check that colors remain distinct and font sizes are legible.

All types of papers will be published in the ACM Digital Library at the authors’ discretion.


Alan Blackwell


Computer Laboratory

University of Cambridge

Cambridge, United Kingdom


Submission deadline: August 1, 2016


Kelly Blincoe, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand

Jeff Carver, University of Alabama, USA

Kathi Fisler, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA

Tudor Gîrba, Independent, Switzerland

Stefan Hanenberg, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany

Andrew Ko, University of Washington, USA

Brad Myers, Carnegie Mellon University, USA

Peter-Michael Osera, Grinnell College, USA

Janet Siegmund, University of Passau, Germany

Jeremy Singer, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom

Emma Söderberg, Google, USA

Andreas Stefik, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA

Ian Utting, University of Kent, United Kingdom

Philip Wadler, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom


Craig Anslow, Middlesex University, UK

Thomas LaToza, George Mason University, USA

Joshua Sunshine, Carnegie Mellon University, USA


Mario Wolczko writes:

In early 2015 I was honored to be invited to develop and present a graduate course on Virtual Machines at UC Berkeley. The result is CS294-113: Virtual Machines and Managed Runtimes, which was presented in the Fall of 2015.

This page contains the materials from that course. All materials are Copyright © Oracle and Mario Wolczko, 2015-6, except as noted. The materials can be used non-commercially under the following Creative Commons license:

Virtual Machines and Managed Runtimes


I’d like to express my thanks to the following:

  • Patrick Li, my T.A. for the course. Patrick devised the Feeny language used in the exercises, wrote the Lab exercises and the model answers, and did all the grading,
  • Prof. Jonathan Bachrach for the invitation to give the course,
  • The guest speakers (in order of appearance): Peter Deutsch, Allan Schiffman, David Ungar, Cliff Click, Lars Bak, Carl Friedrich Bolz, Thomas Würthinger and Michael Van De Vanter,
  • My management at Oracle Labs for supporting this effort,
  • Michael Haupt for sharing his VM course material,
  • Christian Wimmer for assistance with Truffle, and
  • All the students who participated, for their patience, enthusiasm, attention, questions, efforts and feedback.


Excellent Description of Sista! Nice job Eliot and Clément!