> Because those systems have infinite resources
> for the purpose of most programs

The true art is to recognise when this aslo holds for your PIC
application. I think this the case is for the majority of applications
(which is not the same as for the majority of PICs!).

> It's all just software layered on more software.

Ever wondered why a lot of people use Jal, which is clearly an inferior
languague with only bytes and bits? Hint: libraries!

> You can write large useful programs without
> having a clue how a computer really works

Same for a PIC, you might now exactly how a FET works, but I don't. Yet
I can do a lot with PICs.

> Bottom up learning in most subjects generally takes
> longer to produce "cool" results, but in the end produces
> better results.

I think I agree on this one, but only for a narrow sense of 'better'.

> Teaching them bottom up is how you create the next generation
> of gurus.

Again I think I agree, but not everyone is fit for that route. At school
I have always been frustrated with 'general picture first, details later
(if at all)' methods, but some people (most?) seem to favour that route.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.