Order Dynamics Of Posttraumatic Stress essay paper help
Dynamics Of Posttraumatic Stress essay assignment
Hello, this a 1-2 page assignment Although historically associated with exposure to combat, research during the past few decades shows that PTSD may also occur following exposure to other traumas, ranging from dog bites to hurricanes. If this is the case, you might wonder why there aren’t more people suffering from PTSD. The reality is that not everyone who experiences a trauma will develop PTSD. So, why do some people develop PTSD while others do not?
However, an overuse of the addition of syntactic sugar dis- tracts, because verbosity hinders to see the important con- tent directly. Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that several forms of syntactic sugar for one concept may hinder communication as different persons might prefer different elements for expressing the same idea.
Kindly place your order right now for a plagiarism-free, custom-written essay assignment that is absolutely original on Dynamics Of Posttraumatic Stress done by our best nursing writers
Nevertheless the introduction of syntactic sugar can also improve a language, e.g., the enhanced for-statement in Java 5 is widely accepted although it is conceptually redundant to a common for-statement. This is a conflict to guideline 12, but the frequency of occurrence of common for-statements in Java legitimates a more effective alternative of this notation.
Guideline 18: “Permit comments.” Comments on model elements are essential for explaining design decisions made for other developers. This makes models more understand- able and simplifies or even enables collaborative work. So a widely accepted standard form of grouped comments, like /* … */, and line comments, like // … for textual languages or text boxes and tooltips for graphical languages should be embedded.
Furthermore, specially structured comments can be used for further documentation purposes as generating HTML- pages like Javadoc. In [8] it is mentioned that the “purpose of a programming language is to assist in the documentation of programs”. Therefore we recommend that every DSL should allow a user to generally comment at various parts of the model. If desired, the language may even contain the definition of a comment structure directly, thus enforcing a certain style of documentation.
Guideline 19: “Provide organizational structures for models.” Especially for complex systems the separation of models in separate artifacts (files) is inevitable but often not enough as the number of files would lead to an overflowed model directory. Therefore, it is desirable to allow users to arrange their models in hierarchies, e.g., using a pack- age mechanism similar to Java and store them in various directories.
As a consequence, the language should provide concepts to define references between different files. Most commonly “import” is used to refer to another name space. Imports make elements defined in other DSL artifacts visible, while direct references to elements in other files usually are ex- pressed by qualified names like“package.File.name”. Some- times one form of import isn’t enough and various relations apply which have to be reflected in the concrete syntax of the language.
Guideline 20: “Balance compactness and comprehensibility.” As stated above, usually a document is written only once but read many times. Therefore, the comprehensibility of a notation is very important, without too much verbosity. On the other hand, the compactness of a language is still a worthwhile and important target in order to achieve effectiveness and productivity while writing in the language.
Hence a short notation is more preferable for frequently used elements rather than for rarely used elements.
Guideline 21: “Use the same style everywhere.” DSLs are typically developed for a clearly defined task or viewpoint. Therefore, it is often necessary to use several languages to specify all aspects of a system. In order to increase under- standability the same look-and-feel should be used for all sublanguages and especially for the elements within a language. In this way the user can obtain some kind of intuition for a new language due to his knowledge of other ones. For instance, it is hardly intuitive if curly braces are used for combining elements in one language and parentheses in an- other. Additionally, a general style can also assist the user in identifying language elements, e.g., if every keyword consists of one word and is written in lower case letters.
A conflicting example is the embedment of OCL. One the one hand it is possible to adapt the OCL syntax to the enclosing language to provide the same syntactic style in both languages. On the other hand different OCL styles impede the comprehensibility of OCL, what endorses the use of a standard OCL syntax.
Guideline 22: “Identify usage conventions.” Preferably not every single aspect should be defined within the language definition itself to keep it simple and comprehensible (see guideline 11). Furthermore, besides syntactic correctness it is too rigid to enforce a certain layout directly by the tools. Instead, usage conventions can be used which describe more detailed regulations that can, but need not be enforced.
In general, usage conventions can be used to raise the level of comprehensibility and maintainability of a language. The decision, whether something goes as a usage convention or within a language definition is not always clear. So, usage conventions must be defined in parallel to the concrete syntax of the language itself. Typical usage conventions include notation of identifiers (uppercase/lowercase), order of elements (e.g. attributes before methods), or extent and form of comments. A good example for code conventions for a programming language can be found in [9].
