From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!skvax2.csc.ti.com!petcher
From: petcher@skvax2.csc.ti.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Topdown design
Message-ID: <8902281333.AA26629@ti.com>
Date: 28 Feb 89 13:28:04 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> 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?
 
Top-down design need not be incompatible with re-usability.  The key is to do 
only the design in a top-down fasion, followed by bottom-up implementation.

Malcolm Petcher