Make sure the design is design and not implementation (design is "sum two numbers and check for overflow"; implementation is "temp32 = x16+y16; if temp32 > MAX16 then result16 = MAX16 else result16 = x16+y16;). Put another way, despite the popular writings I've seen lately to the contrary, CODE IS NOT DESIGN (any more than a car is the design of the car).
While, I agree with the rest of your post, I have to disagreee with this. Code is just a more detailed level of design. Any time I write any code to implement any specification or higher level design description, I make many "design decisions". Just because code requires that you conform to a certain specification and is usually (more or less) the last step before testing doesn't make it the implementation. The implementation of software is the actual running program - there are many other layers of "processing" that must occur between code and a running program (compilation or interpretation and execution by the computer itself). Each of which can give you different results depending on how the code was written.
I often consider code the "detailed blueprints" of a piece of software. To use the construction analogy:
An architect describes a new building at a high level. (high level design)
A civil engineer designs the building generating the blueprints (aka code).
Contructions workers implement the design by putting up the building (compile and run).
Slashdot Mirror
I often consider code the "detailed blueprints" of a piece of software. To use the construction analogy:
An architect describes a new building at a high level. (high level design)
A civil engineer designs the building generating the blueprints (aka code).
Contructions workers implement the design by putting up the building (compile and run).