Re: top-down design + nevermind

[cr88192 sydney]

> this is related to recent guile-snarf weirdness but could be said to
> apply generally to ends such as setting guile's direction.  top-down
> design values interface elegance more than implementation elegance.  the
> implementation does what it needs to support the interface and in return
> for bearing this burden is given the freedom to evolve.
>
> this is obviously in contrast to bottom-up design which i believe can
> get a lot of unfocused work done but often presumes to know the future
> too much in practice, eventually causing re-design, because elegance is
> measured in the implementation and guesses are made about usage.
>
> either style of design is fun.  people write books about their own
> personal design philosophies and how it helps you (10min a day).  in any
> case, what users perceive determines their happiness w/ the result.
>
> so how to choose the style that fits best for the job?
I use both, for my os I use bottom up design and for my compiler I used top 
down.
main difference: top down is a lot faster it would seem (a few hours vs. 
months), however top down becomes increasingly harder as complexity 
increases (at least in my experience).
also top down tends to yeild code which is quite difficult to reuse in 
another project (my compiler + my os), and quite difficult to change later 
or maintain...

> what is guile's direction, btw?
I think it is more bottom up...
no one started coding an ide and came up with guile/scm in the process. just 
now are ide's starting to form... (as far as I know).

in a whole cs and science in general seem to be a bottom up process, with 
occasional "products" that are built in the top down manner...

I support bottom up in general, but would not recommend it if time is a big 
issue...


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com