begin quoting JD Runyan as of Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 02:12:41PM -0500: > Lan Barnes wrote: [snip] > >Top down means you analyze the program from it's highest > >functions/behaviors and deconstruct. Bottom up means you identify the > >critical low-level functions and write them first, letting the program > >shape up around them. Either approach done purely and without any > >admixture of the other leads to disaster. > > > >Best to combine them and write out-in, if that makes any sense. > > I usually design from a top-down point of view, while I build/architect > mostly bottom-up.
Wasn't the structured programming crowd fond of saying "top-down design, bottom-up implementation"? > I don't know how you could do pure bottom-up and have > something functional, nor do I see how you end up with more than a giant > work around using pure top-down. This has been what I've observed as well. Top-down falls out of problem decomposition. Code reuse falls out of bottom-up. -Stewart "Waterfalls don't work so well either" Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
