Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!seismo!caip!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!faustus
From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: Missionary Position .vs. 69
Message-ID: <858@ucbcad.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Tue, 15-Jul-86 13:07:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.858
Posted: Tue Jul 15 13:07:31 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jul-86 03:30:59 EDT
References: <2900019@ztivax.UUCP>
Organization: CAD Group, U.C. Berkeley
Lines: 22

In article <2900019@ztivax.UUCP>, david@ztivax.UUCP writes:
> In other words, a bottom up design allows the top levels (the "user"
> language) to work better, nd to be more flexible: the user is not
> tied to one language which may be applicable to one use, but can
> develop or choose other languages which have better primitives for the
> problem at hand.
> 
> (slight pause to don flame-proof suit)
> 
> Top-down sucks, bottom up is better.

What sort of silly comment is this?  There is no such thing as "bottom
up" or "top down" design -- there is good design and there is bad
design, and a good designer will think about his problem from an
overall standpoint (top down) and then based on this, create the
primitives that are needed (bottom up).  If you design programs by
indiscriminately creating primitives without any thought about what
they are to be used for, or if you think only in terms of high-level
algorithms and don't think about your low-level representations until
you are forced to, you are going to write a bad program.

	Wayne