That's probably smarter than my approach, but then I lack the discipline
Robert STRANDH wrote:
> Jeff Dalton <j...
>>You prefer bottom-up order?
>>That's interesting, if so. How common is that?
> I would think it is very common. Bottom-up programming allows you to
> test the functions as you go along.
to work the way I should. When I sit down to write the hugest app I
always begin (in COBOL):
perform 2000-middle until done.
Then I like to stand up, do my end-zone dance*, stretch, announce my
coming in under budget, shake a few hands, then sit back down to repeat
that exercise on 2000-middle. beginning and end get filled in when the
middle crashes because I did not open a file, or when my manager says,
"Great, Kenny, but where the %$%$^ is the output file?".
The thing I like about this is that I get to defer the tedious details
as long as possible, generally until a day or two before we go live. The
compiler error listing is my "do list". It tends to get longer and
longer during the first third of development, stay constant for the
middle two thirds, then diminish asymtoptically for the final three thirds.
Any lines still producing compiler errors when it is time to go live I
just comment out.
* American football. Showing off after scoring.
** Just kidding, but I do like to work top-down, and I never test
low-level stuff on its own. What if it works? Then that time was wasted.
yes this makes for more and harder debugging, but Lisp is great for
runtime debugging, and debugging is fun, so I have plenty of energy for
it. if I had to test every function after coding it, I would become a
bookkeeper or something else more entertaining. fast and loose, ladies,
fast and loose.
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application