> I'm not sure the principle is universally applicable, though -- you
> wouldn't want to build a bridge that way (or, leastways, you wouldn't
> want to use a bridge that you knew had been built that way, would you?)
True enough. When it comes to programming, I find that this bit of
logic from the other post (Holding a program in one's head) goes a
long way...
> You can magnify the effect of a powerful language by using a style
called
> bottom-up programming, where you write programs in multiple layers, the
> lower ones acting as programming languages for those above. If you do
> this right, you only have to keep the topmost layer in your head.
The "atoms" on the bottom need to be as "perfect" as possible. With
sensible program normalisation practices (something like it's okay to
duplicate code fragments in the name of simplicity, but don't
duplicate where something is stored) programs should remain simple
enough.
|
