Junilu Lacar wrote:It's a little surprising for me when I get that kind of reaction; it's as though people have never heard of top-down design vs bottom-up design. Is that something that only folks from older generations know about now? I don't get it. I grew up in the Structured Analysis and Design era and starting top-down seems more sensible to me.
Perhaps more of a thing of those specific people who never heard of top-down design (it is a bit weird though, kind of common sense thing..). These days also in computer science course you'd rather see than not a module called something similar to Systems Analysis and Design, where students are being taught about top-down and bottom-up designs. And the usual saying I heard is, that bottom-up might be suitable if the system you are designing is really small, or bigger system decomposed to something considerably small where you could take a bottom-up approach, but anything bigger than that, of course, without seeing a big picture first, would be quite difficult to think about nitty gritty details at first. Maybe not that impossible, but rather not productive, because to most extent you'd figure out at the end, that you don't need what you got, and what you need actually you don't have it.
On the other hand, depending who is your audience, but you know yourself, that's not something uncommon that people who are starting out, finding quite difficult to include into design only what is really necessary at that time, and leave out what doesn't really matter yet, so they do go to nitty gritty details too much and too early - but this is what that Systems Analysis and Design module is actually attacking, how to think about abstract ideas at first, and only then zoom in when you really have to.