Top-Down vs Bottom-Up

All languages can be conclusively and reliably separated into 2 major camps, those which were designed top-down and those which were implemented bottom-up.
The top down approach(example:LISP,Prolog,Haskell,Java,.NET) is creating an abstract environment and implementing a layer which translates abstractions into machine code or bytecode.
The bottom-up approach(example:Macro Assembler,Forth,C) is creating a execution chain of blocks which represent machine opcodes, with those blocks being portable abstraction of assembler.
What is your preferred approach?

In the beginning was the hardware.

Your abstract bullshite need not apply, asm and C own your sorry asses.

In today's hardware, it doesn't fucking matter.

How cute, OP recreated the high-level/low-level distinction.

>>2
APPLY MY ANUS

Top-Down and Bottom-Up don't mean what you think they mean OP.
They're design methodologies and can be used with any language whatsoever.

>>6
You are correct, it is possible to design a program in assembly from the top down. But OP was talking about when the language itself was designed. Both uses are valid.