rfarris@serene.UUCP (Rick Farris) (02/24/89)
In article <6093@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> rjh@cs.purdue.EDU (Bob Hathaway) writes: > (I write) > >|This seems to go backwards. Programmers should first design > >|their software then implement it. You seem to be advocating > >|implementation then design. The descriptive algorithm should > >|come first, then the code. > In article <9689@ihlpb.ATT.COM>, nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Liber) writes: > >I have a problem with Top-Down programming (design then > >implementation); it happens to be the same problem I have with > >Bottom-Up programming (implementation then design). You so eloquently > >point it out in your next sentence: Something that neither one of you guys addressed, and that I think is crucial to the whole "Top-Down Design" issue, is reusability. Top-down design implies leaves that are custom made for the program at hand. Reusability implies molding the problem definition around leaf (and maybe not-so-leaf) modules that are already available. After all, for a hardware design, you wouldn't design your own ICs, would you? One of Ada's major strengths is it's facilities to design for re-use, and we designers have to come to grips with the idea that we're not going to be doing "optimal" designs anymore. > |Just follow the convention that when code is updated so are the > |comments. Hmm. That's ok when you're working on small projects. I've never seen it work in real-life when many programmers were involved. Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@serene.cts.com ...!uunet!serene!rfarris serene.UUCP 259-7757