Dear Friends,
Every software book and research paper on so called software components has been promoting a lie for past 50 years such as "reusable software parts are components for software". The CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) for software is defined is using such fake components. Please see attached PDF for more details.
Isn’t it an obvious lie considering this objective reality: The real components used for designing and building large physical products such as airplanes, machines, factory equipment, cars or computers, where each of the product is built by assembling the components. Each of the components is designed to be “assembled” (so that it can be disassembled and re-assembled), and in fact the component is most likely custom designed to fit just one product model, so it is unlikely be reusable or standardized to be reusable across multiple product models or product families.
I have been struggling to explain my inventions rooted in my accidental discoveries in simple laymen terms. I have been facing a huge hostile resistance when trying to expose Facts to prove this: Almost everything in the software books for so called components and research papers about the so-called software components in the context of real CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) for software is fiction and/or illusion.
What I am saying may perceive to be arrogant, disrespectful or feel offended. But it is a fact and I am determined to make the software world aware and accept the fact. If I insist that books on botany of zoology are nothing more than fiction and pure imagination or fantasy filled with lies having no basis in reality/fact, I am sure it would offend the scientists or researchers of respective scientific disciplines. But to prove that I am right, all I must do is to document and demonstrate the reality/fact (i.e. simple or obvious observable facts about the animals or trees) to expose the lies.
If all the books and research papers say dolphins lay eggs, if I disagree, I must be allowed to expose such lie by showing proof that dolphins give birth to babies. As a researcher, it is my moral duty and ethical obligation to expose such lies by showing conclusive evidence. It is an ethical obligation of every other researcher to investigate the evidence. I am sure anyone would agree that, no real scientist would defend such lies, if the lies contradict obvious observable facts about the animals or trees. How would you feel, if they insist that the reality must be ignored by insisting that is how researchers or scientists of a scientific discipline have been acquiring the BoK (Body of Knowledge) in the books since the infancy of the discipline?
The authentic source for such knowledge is observing the dolphins (but not the books). If there is a dispute about an information or fact such as an essential nature such as property of the components, unfortunately today no software expert in the world agreed to go out and observe the authentic source – the components. If there is a dispute about a fact such as weather dolphins give birth to babies or deliver eggs, to resolve the dispute the real scientists would go out and observe the authentic source – the Dolphins.
This is what software researchers and experts have been doing: If you take him to sea to prove that the dolphins are delivering babies, after confirming by observing thousands of dolphins delivering babies, what kind of sane scientist or researcher insists that the dolphins are doing it wrong? They are saying that the dolphins are not supposed to deliver babies (they must be delivering eggs), because every book and research paper is saying so.
No real scientist would be offended, if I request that we must go out and discover the reality (by observing the dolphins) to resolve such disagreement of basic facts. In fact, I should be offended, if he snubs or insults me by saying that the reality doesn’t matter or irrelevant. It is unethical, if any one resort to insults or personal attacks to keep me quite from saying such Truth.
The reality is: components are very special kind parts that can be assembled. Even after seeing conclusive proof, many software researchers have been insisting that reusable parts (that can never be assembled) are components and insisting that using such fake components is CBE/CBD, because all the software books and research publications on CBD/CBE for software have been saying so.
Even it is impossible to believe all the text books are fiction, researchers must accept the obvious or observable reality. If the software researchers observe the components, they have no option but concede that everything in the software books and research papers about the so-called software components (in the context of CBD/CBE) is fiction (or lies). But today software researchers are refusing to go out and observe the authentic source (the components), reality and empirical evidence.
Is it necessary for real components to be either reusable or standardized as the CBD/CBE books and research papers have been brainwashing everyone (from the time each of us were impressionable students)? Unfortunately, the components can’t read the software books to know that they are doing it wrong by not following what is in the books or research papers (e.g. expect the components to be doing).
The reality is 90% of large components are custom designed to fit just one product model: What is the nature and essential properties of the components, particularly in case of designing and development of large or complex one of a kind product such as prototype of an experimental spacecraft or fully tested pre-production next generation jet fighters? What percent of components are reusable? What is the percent of components that are standardized (or satisfy the properties attributed to the so called software components)? What is the percent of components that are “assembled”?
For example, let’s consider an average product: What is the percent of core components (e.g. engine, gearbox or power-train) in Toyota Camry that are reusable across product models such as Corolla or Avalon? Each of the core components are “assembled”, because each core components is most likely custom designed for a given product model (so unlikely to be either reusable or standardized).
Are all these custom design components are doing it wrong? Don’t they know what they supposed to be doing? Design, development and/or engineering of each such product (by using such components, which can be assembled but are not reusable) is not CBD/CBE, because every book on CBD/CBE is saying so. For example, if I say that any part that can’t be assembled (but forced to be composed) is unlikely to be a real-component, one can prove me wrong by showing average components that can’t be assembled, so have no other choice but to compose. Instead software researchers insist that the objective reality is irrelevant.
The reality is that larger parts that can be assembled are known as the components. Such components (that are assembled) are very useful is under statement. The fact is, such large components (that are assembled) are the backbone or lifeblood of the modern industrial world.
The observable facts are foundation to our knowledge. The theories are used to provide logical reasoning to explain the observable facts. Software researchers are doing it wrong: How does dolphins give birth? Weather dolphins deliver babies or lay eggs? The fact is dolphins deliver babies. It would have no effect, even if every text book or research paper on dolphins say that dolphins deliver eggs.
What is the essential property of the components? Weather is it “reusable” or “assembled”? The observable fact is that components are “assembled” (while only a small percent of large core components are reusable). Unfortunately, every software text book, research paper says components are “reusable” (or large reusable parts are defined as components).
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Peter,
Kindly illustrate it to me, how you would summarize this: The birds are very special kind of animals having wings and can fly by flapping the wings. Any animal not having wings is not a bird. Since almost everyone knows and/or agrees with me on this context, they may have no problem understanding such obvious facts.
Likewise, the components are very special kind of parts that are designed and or conducive to be “assembled” (or plugged-in). In other words, any part that is not conducive to be “assembled” is not a component, even if it is reusable or standardized.
No animal can be a bird without having wings and cannot flap the wings for flying (there are 1% birds such as ostriches or penguins are exceptions to this rule). Likewise, no reusable part can be a component, if it is not conducive to be “assembled” (or plugged-in).
P.S: The birds must be understood in the context of larger animals excluding insects or flies. Likewise, the components must be understood in the context of larger parts excluding nuts, bolts or other such fasteners.
This kind of reality or facts about the components is alien concepts for software experts. Since almost no one knows and/or agrees with me, they may have hard time understanding these otherwise obvious facts (e.g. about 99% of larger physical components are assembled).
The fact is, parts that are designed to be assembled (or plugged-in) are components. There may be 1% exception to this general rule. Therefore, it is a lie: saying that “reusable software parts are software components” (by ignoring the obvious fact that, such a reusable part cannot be a component without being conducive to be assembled).
Today no known kind of so called software components is designed to be assembled. No part (including software part) can be a component, if it is not conducive to be “assembled” (or plugged-in).
-----
Summary: Any part (that includes any software part) that is not conducive for assembling (or plugging-in) is not a component in the context of CBD/CDE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering). The CBD/CBE requires literally assembling (or plugging-in) the components.
No kind of animals can be birds without having wings. Likewise, no other kind of parts can be components without conducive to be assembled.
It is a lie that: reusable (or any other kind of) software parts are components, if the parts cannot be assembled. Any text book or research paper that promotes such lie is fiction in the context of CBE/CBD.
It is not a hard task to invent software parts that can be plugged-in and the missing mechanisms for allowing such assembling. But such things are not yet invented or used by anyone else. In fact, no one else even tried to invent such things.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Peter,
I gave an elaborate explanation in many ways. I am sure, you understood what I mean. Why don’t you help me explain this point: It is an error (or lie) to call any part a component, if the part is not conducive to be assembled (or plugged-in). Every software book and research paper committed this error.
To give an analogy: It is an error (or lie) to call any animal a bird, if the animal has no wings and cannot fly using the wings (there may be few exceptions such as ostrich or penguin).
There are two potent weapons for reducing complexity (i) increasing reuse, and (2) increasing modularity. There is no better mechanism for increasing modularity than assembling components for designing and building the products as illustrated in the PDF attached to main question.
As you know: The real components (i.e. parts that can be literally assembled or plugged-in) is a strange and/or alien concept for software researchers. The reality is: The components are only known kind of parts that can be assembled, while other kinds of parts are composed, painted, mixed, infused, merged or plastered etc. (but not assembled).
I can demonstrate thousands of large software components that can be plugged-in to prove that it is not an hard task to invent software components that can be assembled.
Dr. Peter, things that are hard to believe are perceived (or appear) to be hard to understand (even if the things otherwise are obvious or self-explanatory). This is referred to as “incommensurability” for any new paradigm.
The obvious fact about the birds is easy to understand because it is known fact. The obvious fact about components is hard to understand because it is hard to believe (because software researchers, since the time each of them were impressionable students, have been brain washed to believe lies such as: "Software parts having useful properties such as reusable or standardized are software components").
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
I clearly and repeatedly specified the context. The context of the description is CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering). I already asked you to stick to dictionary :-(.
You are trying to find rare exceptions in case of the components, because you hard time believing the other wise obvious fact. :-(.
Why are you not trying to find exceptions to the description of birds? For example, moa birds don’t have wings, but still considered to be a kind of bird. They were extinct of course. But there are few flightless birds still exist today.
Only difference is, in case of components I am disagreeing with the lies in the books, while in the case of birds I am agreeing with the description in the books.
Dr. Peter, there is interesting quote in this video about democracy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApaMIJiOt-c at time 1:12:50
It (democracy) is not about faith, it is not about trust/proof, it is about dis-trust/disproof
It is about accountability.
It is about Debate.
It is about challenge,
It is about exposure
It is about people becoming active agents of their own life
Want to know what is going on
I don’t have to trust you. I don’t want to trust you
I want to see what is going on
Whose interest you really represent
Dr. Peter, if there is any flaw/lie in the BoK, it is moral and ethical obligation of every researcher to expose the flaw/lie. If you want 100% percent accuracy, you need to discover the intended meaning of term "self-contained". If you want brief or approximate proof in few paragraphs, you need to settle for 98% accuracy.
Let me paraphrase the above for scientific research:
Research is not about faith, it is not about trust/proof, it is about dis-trust/disproof :-).
It is about accountability.
It is about Debate.
It is about challenge, :-).
It is about exposure :-).
It is about people becoming active agents of their own BoK (Body of Knowledge) :-).
Want to know what is going on :-).
I don’t have to trust you. I don’t want to trust you. :-).
I want to see what is going on :-).
Dr. Peter, it is your moral obligation to investigate the evidence to discover the truth. The text books are not the authentic source of the knowledge.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluivuri
Dear Dr. Peter,
I have been keep telling that I am searching for people who care about the validity and accuracy of the BoK (Body of Knowledge). In other words, I am searching for real researchers and scientists who must know that they are obligated to investigate the evidence to know the truth and promote the truth. Of course, testing and challenging is part of the process. The researchgate may not be perfect, but is best available today to search for real researchers.
In a democracy, you can question and challenge the political leadership. In dictatorship you can’t question and challenge the political leadership. Unfortunately, many software researchers feel offended, if I question or challenge the validity in the sacred software text books on components for CBD/CBE. Any scientific discipline is (neither a religion nor a dictatorship but) a democracy, whose constitution is “scientific method” and pursuit of absolute truth (including getting closer and closer to the absolute Truth, until it is possible to discover the Truth) is the religion.
I can’t believe, it took me 14 years of hard work and creating many thousands of components that can be plugged-in (after accidentally stumbling onto components that can be plugged-in 16 years ago) to realize this obvious fact that: No part can be a component (in the context of CBD/CBE of a large product), if it is not conducive to be assembled. Am I stupid :-(?
Nothing in the history of science is bigger glaring lie than the existing descriptions for so called software components, since almost every definition is given in the context of CBSE/CBSD. There are many valid justifications for the biggest known myth “the Earth is static at the center” at the root of the geocentric paradox, such as undetectable stellar parallax or how could the moon follow the Earth, if it is not static.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Peter,
Mankind accumulated huge tacit BoK (Body of Knowledge) about the components in the context of CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) for building products such as interchangeable parts for muskets, singer sewing machines in the 19th century, Ford’s moving assembly line for cars in the 20th century, and other formal methods such as JIT (Just in Time).
P.S: We had similar debate in one of my previous questions about the terminology: https://www.researchgate.net/post/I_have_multiple_valid_proofs_for_my_disruptive_discoveries_but_how_can_I_provide_convincing_proof/6
I want to leverage the simple proven BoK accumulated by the industrial engineering during past 200 years. I don’t want to re-invent the whole thing by inventing new terminology. You are asking me to create Tychonic system for software engineering. It will never work.
The term component may have different meaning in different contexts. But there is no ambiguity for the meaning of the term component in the context of CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) of designing and developing of one-of-a-kind fully-tested pre-production next generation Jet-fighters or experimental spacecraft.
Please see 3 minute video of development process of artificial kidney: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/main-differences.html. Every software product is unique. Every large core component is unique, so not reusable etc.
Dr. Peter, there are few major inventions such as interchangeable components, Ford’s moving assembly line or JIT; and thousands of innovations in between the major inventions for the CBD/CBE. It is foolish to lose all this wisdom accumulated for 200 years by creating new strange and confusing terminology.
For example, have you ever thought of, how Boeing software helps maintenance staff of hundreds of Airline companies around the world replace right components for dozens of major models (e.g. 747, 777, 737 etc.) and minor variants (e.g. 200, 300, 400 etc.) of Airplanes? It could be fatal, if a wrong component is used.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Peter,
I just saw a video about perceptions of dominant paradigm. Please watch first 5 to 10 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a2lisF4XGg. Please pay attention to the 90 seconds bit starting at 6 minutes 05 seconds.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Peter,
Why do you think I am not trying? I have been struggling for many years. You know it. We have been arguing since 2013. It would be helpful, if you could provide, for example, how you would express it.
Did you watch the video for first 7 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a2lisF4XGg? It is not simple to overcome dominant paradigm, especially when no other competing paradigm is even known.
I am not saying, my presentation is good, but even if it is good, it is not simple task. It requires few million dollars’ investment, which includes hiring good researchers to articulate the heterodox views, investing lot of money on press or media promotion.
Even this won’t give perception of authority. Many experts seek the comfort of authority. Many of them think text books are authority, so they accept them as facts without questioning. For others press and endorsement by crony celebrities is perceived to be the authority.
How can I provide such comfort of authority? One method is dragging respected research organizations (e.g. NSF.gov, NITRD.gov, CMU/SEI or DARPA) to courts for rejecting my research proposals (submitted in response to their call for proposals) due to their prejudice and flawed pre-conceived notions. These things need money, which I am struggling to make using our product or planning to raise by convincing investors.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Why it is hard to understand this simple sentence: No part can be a component (in the context of the CBD/CBE of a product), if it is not conducive to be assembled (or plugged-in). Is any kind of so-called software components (known or exist today) must be conducive to be assembled (or plugged-in) by design?
When the Sun is at the center of our planetary system, saying that any other planet (e.g. the Earth) is at the center is a lie. Two planets (e.g. in the context of our Earth and our Sun) can't be at the center same time. Likewise, refering to any part as a component is a lie (in the context of the CBD/CBE of a product), if the part is not conducive to be assembled (or plugged-in)?
You didn’t watch the video, did you? It is called subverting a dominant flawed paradigm, which is rooted in “reuse centric model” and replacing with new paradigm rooted in “assembly centric model”.
Why do you think, I haven’t done or doing what you suggested. Software experts can’t comprehend parts or piece of a new paradigm. This is called gestalt shift. Either you can see either A or B at a time, but not parts of A and parts of B at the same time.
You are asking me to waste my time on incommensurability. I already tried and didn't work. You would understand it, if you try to subvert a dominant flawed paradigm that has been evolved for 50 years and accumulated BoK that is 20 to 30 times more than the BoK existed in 16th century for geocentric paradox.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Peter,
Why don’t you admit that you have no intention of helping, instead of wasting both of our time? I am putting good faith effort and you are working hard to be difficult.
Our discussion is in the context of the engineering of the products using the components. Any thing can be twisted by quoting out of context. The attached PDF presents the top 4 results returned by Google search for phrase “difference between component and part”.
Why don’t you admit that you want to discredit my statement, by evading your obligation of finding a flaw? You have no problem earlier rigorously defending the lies “reusable parts are components” and using such so called components is CBD/CBE.
You can't understand this until you watch first 9 minutes of the video. Every other modern scientific, logic or engineering discipline is employing proven mechanisms for continuous validation and/or correction of flawed axioms, theories or beliefs. In hard sciences, we have objective reality to continuously measure and correct each of the theories and facts in the BoK (Body of Knowledge), where the BoK provides theoretical or scientific foundation for engineering researchers for making useful inventions. In mathematics/logic, the mathematical methods leads to a glaring contradiction (e.g. such as 1 = 0), if a theory or axiom is wrong. In computer science, such mechanisms for continuous validation and/or correction of flawed axioms or beliefs have been ignored.
Software researchers can’t blindly make up definitions or theories for including in BoK (by insisting such flawed theories or beliefs are self-evident facts): If my mission is to reach Asia from San Francisco, is it OK to name (or define) the direction I am going is West (even if I am sailing from San Francisco to South Pole)? Can I define whatever direction I am going is "West" to create an illusion that I am going West. After reaching the South Pole, can I declare that my mission to reach Asia is successful by defining the place I reached is Asia? If I were given a mission to visit the Mars, can I claim that I visited the Mars by defining Sahara desert is the Mars and visiting the Sahara desert?
That is exactly what software researchers have been doing with impunity: The existing definitions for components have been creating an illusion that software engineering is using components. The CBD for software is defined as using such fake components. Whatever kind of software parts researchers feel useful is defined as a kind of software components, without any basis in logic, reasoning or consideration to reality/fact. Whatever the destination such fake components lead to is called a kind of CBD for software.
By the way, I used to call them replaceable components, where the replaceable components are defined as components that are conducive to be disassembled and re-assembled in the context of CBD/CBE of products. You know that it didn’t work. Don’t forget, you were the toughest critic.
P.S: Let me conclude this conversation, because I need to visit Moon. In my dictionary moon means a farm land.
Dr. Peter, the purpose of the research is pursuit of absolute truth at any cost. There are 2 kinds of researchers. The first kind of researchers is leaders who have courage and competence to question or challenge the status-quo to expand the BoK and wisdom. The second kind of people pretends to be researchers but they are merely followers. They fiercely defend the status quo at any cost, even if they suspect or even aware that the status quo is rotten or corrupted (filled with lies).
Each researcher makes the choice on their own, weather he wants to be a researcher or pretender. No one else can make the choice for him. If you watch the video, you could understand this. The followers look for the comfort or illusion of authority such as books and dominant paradigm, even if it is rotten. The smart sales people, public relations and politician provide this illusion of authority to fool the followers.
Best Regards,
Raju
Research Proposal Isn't it a fraud, if any scientific or engineering disciplin...
Dr. Peter,
The way you train students is leading the way by giving examples. You need to show, how you would articulate some thing. Saying that “You are doing it wrong”, is not very helpful (particularly in this case), if you don’t tell what is the right way to do. I can’t read your mind. You need to tell, what the right way is.
Peter, we had discussions about programming. I am talented programmers. I was leading contributor in each of the groups I worked in the Silicon Valley in terms of features and functionality. I almost never had a design bug – This says my mental picture of complex work flows and interdependences is perfect.
I admit that my ability to articulate things is poor, so I am asking for help. As a good teacher, you need to asses the week nesses of the student and tailor your teaching to his ability to comprehend. It doesn’t mean, I am not putting my best efforts. It only means even my best effort is not sufficient for me to use your teaching.
Best Regards,
Raju
What you should do is go review the C++ standard template library. With seeing that you should see what software engineers imply by "components". Everyone knows that a list is a list, a vector is a vector, and a deque is a deque ( by functionality, lookup time, scaleability) and similarly if you want to sort there's quicksort which has an input and output, just like every other algorithm. I fail to see your point of view that machinery (hardware) is any different from software when in fact any computer without software is just a brick!
Dear Dr. Peter & Andrew,
I am rejecting the existing definitions for “components” and “assembling”. I think they are not only flawed but also insidious, because such definition are preventing experts see the reality.
The terms “components” and “assembling” must be understood in the context of objective reality of ideal CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) for example design and development of components for one-of-a-kind products such as fully functional tested pre-production next generation jet fighters or experimental spacecraft and building the products by assembling the components. In such cases most of the large custom components are custom designed to satisfy the unique needs of the product and perfectly fit the product.
For example, let me give an example by describing an ideal CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) in the context of physical products such as Cars, Computers, Airplanes or Machinery etc. The CBD/CBE of a product is designing and development (or implementing) over 90% of the features and functionality of the product in components (that can be assembled and disassembled) and engineering or building the product by assembling the components.
The confusion is due to the fact that software experts not understood certain differences between the diverse software products and product families of physical products: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/main-differences.html. The components are not reusable or standardized, but custom designed to fit one product model. Let me illustrate this by giving a software application that is built by assembling 6 custom components, where each component is custom designed to be easily plugged-in by writing just 3 to 4 lines of code: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html
Please keep in mind, it was nearly impossible to explain heliocentric model in the 16th century. There is no terminology exists even today to explain this, but every one accepts the bad terminology. For example, “the Sun is not static at the center”. It is moving around the galaxy. Out of 9 planets (not including the Moon), 6 planets are in the outer orbits, so in a way they are circling around the Earth also. Why are we not confusing with such things? The answer is that the terminology is understood in the proper context
Nothing in the world can be explained, if the terminology is not understood in the appropriate context (i.e. we are all sharing same background knowledge such as countless implicit assumptions). A paradigm shift need to rely on new background knowledge such as countless implicit assumptions. All this new background knowledge such as countless implicit assumptions already known to us in the context of physical products (i.e. see above examples). The problem is you are insisting to see these terms in the context of flawed CBSD paradox.
The software researchers wanted to invent components and CBD, but ended up defining whatever they invented are components and CBD. They never tried to see the reality for describing the reality. They described or defined the reality about component/CBD and try to fit the reality to their flawed definitions.
I have been keep telling that the terms “components” and “assembling” in the context of designing and developing fully-tested pre-production “golden” prototype of one of a kind product such as an experimental spacecraft, next-generation jet-fighter or exotic fuel-cell powered hybrid locomotive engine etc.
In software, golden means the first copy of a CD containing the product, where the CD is sent to manufacturing for mass-production. Likewise, golden product-copy is used as reference for building assembly-line to mass produce the products. You are keep trying to understand in the existing dominant paradox for the software by using the paradox’s background information and implicit assumptions we all brainwashed for past 50 years.
You have no trouble understanding definition of birds because we share same background knowledge and implicit assumptions. But in case of “components” and “assembling”, I am using the terms in the background knowledge and implicit assumptions for the CBD/CBE of one-of-a-kind physical products, while you are relying on the existing background knowledge and implicit assumptions for software.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Peter,
Your suggestion kind of inconsistent with the thing I want to accomplish. Please kindly remember this: I am requesting the researchers to observe with scientific eye both the components and CBD/CBE for finding accurate descriptions (e.g. essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known component for CBD).
Then employ proven scientific method for gaining valuable wisdom and insights: Let other researchers test and challenge the descriptions (in light of the reality of components and CBD of one of a kind products) to bring our understanding closer and closer to objective reality. If I call it wozzits, isn’t deliberate misleading and inconsistent with the right path.
I believe, my descriptions for components and CBD are first step in the right direction and closer to the reality, but far from perfect. I am sure there is lot of room for improvements.
For example, the Copernicus’s proposal for Heliocentric model is first step in the right direction, but it is very far from perfect. Many other researchers such as Kepler, Galileo and Newton perfected the Heliocentric model.
Calling it wozzits diverts into another wrong path. There would be no objective reality or mrchanisum to compare or measure the error, to detect, if we end up in wrong path.
The discoveries of Kepler and Galileo is huge advancement in the right direction. The logical evolution or next step for discoveries of Kepler and Galileo is discovery of gravity. What is keeping the planets stay in the orbits? For example, even the greatest minds Kepler and Galileo didn’t even speculate the possibility of attraction between the planets that keeping them in the orbits.
I have been thinking for past few weeks, what could be the next logical evolution for the “assembly oriented model”. I need to have something to fall back, if my patents expire before I become successful in exposing the flawed “reuse oriented model”. I think, I found it. Of course, I need to do lot of work to bring it to a shape.
Once the accurate descriptions for components for real CBD is known, it is a trivial task to invent real software components for achieving real-CBD. What purpose wozzits serves, if I ask you to discover the accurate description for the components (in the context of CBD/CBE) for inventing components that fit the description?
Dr. Peter, if I want someone to paint an elephant I need to ask him to observe the elephants to know how it looks like and paint something that looks like the elephant. I am asking researchers to observe components for understanding their nature, properties and for finding accurate description for painting components in software (i.e. inventing equivalent components). Painting an elephant is not hard, if one knows how it looks like. Likewise, inventing equivalent software components is not hard, if the accurate description is known. Calling them wizzots defeat the purpose.
Dr. Peter: These are my goals. I want researchers to find the accurate description for the Components. I want researchers to find the accurate description for the CBD/CBE of physical products such as cars, computers, airplanes and machinery. Now invent software components equivalent to the physical components, where requirement is to achieve real CBD/CBE for software, where the real CBD/CBE for software must be equivalent to the physical products. Achieving the real CBD/CBE is the measurement that the inventions of software components are in the right path.
What useful purpose the components could serve, if the components can’t achieve real CBD, which is: Designing and implementing 90% of the code of the product in multiple real components of optimal size (e.g. 1000 to 3000 lines of code), where each component can be unplugged (e.g. to redesigned and tested individually outside of the product free from spaghetti code) and tested before re-plugging-in.
P.S: Your suggestion is good. It made me seriously consider it. After thinking seriously I found the above problems.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Peter,
You misunderstood again. I want the researchers to characterize the physical components in the context of CBD/CBE of one-of-a-kind physical products (without any pre-conceived notion). You have to forget every thing you learned about the so called components.
They would realize these 2 facts: (1) No physical part can be a component, if it is not designed for conducive to be assembled, and (2) the CBD/CBE is implementing large portion of feature and functionality in optimal sized components and building the product by assembling the components.
How can you paint an elephant, if you don’t know what it is (a building, animal or tree). Likewise, you can’t invent component that can achieve real CBD until you know what is component and what it supposed to achieve (if they are really components). Kindly don’t draw (or define) something and try to fit the something (e.g. elephant or component) fit the definition (or drawing).
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Peter,
You want short statements. Then you interpret the statement in completely out of context. Please look as “golden” fully tested pre-production prototype. When Toyota (e.g. Camry) or Northrop (e.g. next generation jet fighter) wants to build a new model they first create working pre-production prototypes.
They use CBD for building “golden” fully tested pre-production prototype. For example, Wright brothers must have used CBD/CBE to build the first airplane. Look at this example of creating artificial kidney. They are certainly using the CBD (see third paragraph): http://real-software-components.com/CBD/main-differences.html
Every product reuses many kinds of parts. For example, parts such as steel, plastic, semiconductor wafers, cement, glass or many kinds of alloys are reused across many product families. No one is going to make such parts. If Toyota needs steel to build cars, Toyota don’t build steel factory to make steel.
Dr. Peter, it is wrong to define things and then try to fit the observations to your definitions. You can’t have selective amnesia. Please listen first 9 minutes in this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a2lisF4XGg. You first document the observations and facts. Then you define your theory to fit the facts.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Peter,
Every thing including facts (e.g. designing and building of Artificial Kidney) that don’t fit your pre-conceived notion and prejudice is gibberish for you.
I have been observing CBD of diverse new physical products for long time and trying to summarize my observations of the components in the context of the CBD of many kinds of products such as Airplanes, machinery, cars or computers. These observations have nothing to do with software. I am looking at them as layman to characterize and document my observations.
Let me give you an analogy: If every Zoology books think dolphins are fish and give birth by delivering eggs. You feel it is gibberish, if I say that I have observed hundreds of dolphins for few years and every one of them delivered babies (or none of them delivered eggs). They are just observation of facts. How can such observable facts be gibberish?
Likewise, it is an observable fact: no large physical part can be a component, if it is not designed to be conducive to be assembled. It is an observable fact: CBD/CBE of a new product under design and development is building large portion of features and functionality in components, where the components are designed to be conducive to be assembled.
The terms “delivered” or “give birth” has other meanings in other contexts. For example, postman delivered parcel. The pain gave birth to compassion. Likewise, the terms “assembled” or “components” has many meanings in other contexts. But in the meaning of the terms has no ambiguity in the context of CBD. I am using those terms in the context of CBD of new product models. You are saying “component” has different meaning in chemistry or physics, so it is gibberish.
“You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him to find it within himself” … Galileo Galilee
Another analogy: The species of birds are very special kind of animal species having wings and can fly by flapping the wings - may be less than 1% of bird species can’t fly, even though they have wings. This is a simple observation of facts. How can it be gibberish? If you disagree, please provide counter evidence.
Likewise, I am making simple observation of facts for the physical components in the context of design and development of new product models of CBD products such as golden 2018 model of Camry, next generation jet-fighter or Boeing 797. You said, you are building a new security software product. Your effort results a “golden” version of 1.0 release.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
How do you summarize this simple observation of fact: No part used for building products such as cars, airplanes or machinery can be a component, if it is not designed and/or conducive to be assembled? That is, any part cannot be called a components, if it cannot be assembled or disassembled.
Hence reusable parts such as steel, cement, plastic or alloys are not components, because they are not conducive to be assembled (so can’t be disassembled). Such parts are composed or mixed etc.
Another observation of fact: The CBD/CBE for building new product models such as cars, airplanes or machinery requires implementing large portion of features and functionality of the product in components that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled.
Hence, it is not a CBD/CBE, if designing and building such a new product model not uses such components that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled. How do you summarize such simple observation of facts?
P.S: Please don’t pretend that you don’t understand these statements. These are my observations of CBD/CBE of physical products as a layman. Please don’t confuse between these 2 things (i) you don’t agree with the statements and (ii) you don’t understand the statements. Please keep in mind that they are completely different things.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Peter,
OK. Please help out by rewriting the above listed assertion to communicate effectively.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
There exist certain kinds of parts such as hard drive, CPU, Engine, Alternator, 12VDC Battery in the car, DRAM or CD-players, where each of the parts can be disassembled form the product, for example, to repair or replace by a new/better part. Such parts (that are assembled and may be disassembled) are known as components.
On the other hand, other kinds of parts such as ingredient parts (e.g. steel, plastic, alloys or glass) are not assembled. Such parts are not referred to as components. The main thing that differentiates components from other kinds of parts is that, components are conducive to be assembled. Hence a part that can’t be assembled is very unlikely to be a component.
Isn’t commons sense: The CBD/CDE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) of any product must use components. Don’t you need to use apples to make apple juice? Can you make apple juice by using other fruits such as lemon or oranges? How can it be a CBD/CBE, if it is not using the components (i.e. but using other kinds or parts)?
Best Regards,
Raju
Dr. Peter, you think you are making sarcastic remarks, but sad thing is that they are mostly right ;-), if they are written in professional and humble or politely manner.... Raju
Dear Dr. Gruner,
What are the striking and main difference between the parts that are certainly components and other kind of parts that are certainly not components? How one can find out the striking and main difference, if there is such a striking and main difference?
Please list out a few dozen to few hundred of parts that are certainly good examples for components for the physical products that are built by using components (e.g. products such as cars, computers, airplanes or machinery etc.)
Also pleases list out good examples for parts that are certainly not components for the physical products.
The striking difference is that parts are designed or conducive to be assembling (or plugging-in) are components. The parts that are not assembled (or plugged-in) are not components.
Hence, isn’t a lie to insist reusable or standardized parts such as TMT-steel, 53-grade cement, standardized plastic sheets, bare semiconductor wafers or plates of alloys that are used for making cars, airplanes or machinery? All these parts are highly standardized for using across many product families and manufactured in advanced factories (so they are complex parts).
Dr. Gruner, don’t you need to use apples to make apple juice? Can you make apple juice by using other kinds of fruits that are not apples? How can you call a method CBD/CBE that only uses other kinds of parts that are certainly not components by any stretch of imagination (since parts that can never be assembled under any conditions are not components)?
Today no known kind of so called software component is required to be assembled. Today, no one is even putting any conscious effort for making such so called software components conducive to be assembled. Isn't it a lie to define that: CBD/CBE is using parts that can't be components by any stretch of imagination?
Dr. Brooks, persuasively argued in his paper “There is no silver bullet” that all the complexity is essential complexity. But I can demonstrate over 80% of the complexity in software development and certainly maintenance is accidental complexity due to the spaghetti code. No product designed and built by assembling components, is affected by such spaghetti code.
Kindly read TwoPotentWeapons.pdf attached to the main question.
Also please read Dr. Thomas Kuhn’s famous book “The Structure of the Software Revolution”. Let me give the first paragraph of a great synopsis of the book https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/kuhnsyn.html by Dr. Pajares below:
A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs. These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice". The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs are firmly fixed in the student's mind. [Mistake-1] Scientists take great pains to defend the assumption that scientists know what the world is like... [Mistake-2] To this end, "normal science" will often suppress novelties which undermine its foundations. [Mistake-3] Research is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education".
Dr. Gruner, software researchers committing all three mistakes. I can also quote many more famous books and scientific methods (e.g. of Karl Popper, Newton, Descartes or Galileo) to prove that my assertions are not “rants”.
In fact, you are ranting, because you are assuming that I didn’t read the book "Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact". I read many books on philosophy of science and scientific methods. Dr. Kuhn wrote Foreword to English translation of this book.
The Book, in fact, supports my arguments, reasoning and facts, I have been accumulating for past 16 years (ever since I accidentally stumbled onto real-software-components that can be plugged-in) by creating several thousands of large components that can be plugged-in and building hundreds of complex component hierarchies by assembling such components.
Isn’t it common sense: Component Based product imply that it must use components? Do I need to read every book on the planet to make observation of obvious fact such as making pure apple juice requires using real apples?
Isn't it a lie to call it apple juice, if it uses other kinds of fruits (but don't use any apples)? Even if it is a lie, is it a rant to call it a lie?
Likewise, isn’t a lie to insist that a product is a Component Based product, if the product doesn’t use/contain components (i.e. parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled).
If every book and researcher in the planet says that Dolphins give birth to eggs (like many kinds of fish), I must be allowed to prove that it is a lie by showing few Dolphins that are giving birth to babies (like mammals).
I have been requesting software researches to give me an opportunity to prove that it is possible to build software applications by plugging-in components to assemble larger and larger component hierarchies and eventually the product. Isn’t it a lie or error to call it a component based product, if design, building or engineering of the product doesn’t use even a single component?
If you think, I am lying or ranting, to support my assertions I have many US patents on such CBD:7827527, 7840937, 8527943, 8392877, 8578329 and 9058177. Our start-up company pioneer-soft.com created first ever GUI technologies for creating GUI components that can be plugged-in and software motherboard for plugging-in the components. Any one can freely down load the API to build component hierarchies by building and plugging-in large GUI-components.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Gruner,
I intend no disrespect. Just like to document reality. My assertions are limited to the software engineering and computer science in the context of software components and CBD/CBE for software. Let me quote Newton:
“The best and safest way of philosophizing seems to be, first to enquire diligently into the properties of things and to establish those properties by experiments and then to proceed slowly to hypotheses for the explanation of them. For hypotheses should be employed only in explaining the properties of things, but not assumed in determining them; unless so far as they may furnish experiments.”
Dr. Gruner: This is what I done in my website: http://real-software-components.com/moredocs.html. We cannot use imagination in defining the properties or nature of things such as components or dolphins. Once all the properties are enquired and documented diligently, we need to hypothesize assertions or theories for furnishing experiments. This is what I have been doing for over a decade.
Any such theory would have lot of room for improvement. Such theory can be improved by testing it and challenging it to get our wisdom closer and closer to objective reality. We must create objective measures and mechanisms to make sure our research efforts are not slowly slipping further away from the objective reality.
My theories may not be perfect, but they certainly put research efforts on the right path. In that context, I believe I made substantial progress by employing scientific method: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306078165_Computer_Science_Software_Must_be_Considered_as_an_Independent_Discipline_Computer_Science_Software_must_not_be_Treated_as_a_Sub-Domain_or_Subset_of_Mathematics
I also believe, software researchers committed one of the biggest mistake: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305768125_Description_summary_of_one_of_the_biggest_mistakes_researchers_must_avoid_or_never_repeat_at_any_cost. The scientific method is created to avoid such kind of mistake.
Also computer science must device mechanisms to make sure that our research efforts are not diverted into wrong paths by creating measurements to detect errors: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308678137_Isn%27t_it_a_fraud_if_any_scientific_or_engineering_discipline_doesn%27t_have_any_methods_to_validate_or_correct_beliefs_theories_or_hypothesis
You said “writing hair-raising (un-original, un-enlightened)”. What do you meant by un-original? Whom did I copy? There is nothing that is more original than disputing unchallenged conventional wisdom?
Best Regards,
Raju
Thesis Description & summary of one of the biggest mistakes researc...
Research Proposal Computer Science (Software) Must be Considered as an Indepen...
Research Proposal Isn't it a fraud, if any scientific or engineering disciplin...
Dear Raju,
You seem to be seriously confused about a distinction that used to puzzle and annoy researchers for years (for centuries, in fact). Only recently it has attracted several groups of prominent researchers that stand on two legs: they are able engineers, AND they are recognized philosophers. I am sure many colleques present on ResearchGate can provide You with the relevant literature (I also work in this area, and I do keep track of these works, but I am a little put off by the hostile wording of your posts; in my view it remains hostile, regardless of how many caveats you attach and how many patents you claim). Namely, the difference is that between SCIENCE (scientific research of the world that is "out there", including dolphins, eggs, etc., mostly using a hypothetico-deductive method), and DESIGN (engaging in changing the world, in our case - by rolling out artefacts, or artificial systems; the hypothetico-deductive system also plays a part in this research, but in a non-trivial and rather indirect way). "System" is that which is composed of at least two proper parts; otherwise it would be an atom. We normally call these parts "components". Of course, there are different meanings of 'component' - these may be "pieces of junk", but also roles, etc. Design requires, and produces, specific terminology. According to the specificity of design sciences, at least part of this terminology tags and technically describes what designers *intend* it to mean (i.e., it is in a certain way similar to a specification). Its meaning is not "out there" in the first place. This also pertains to "assembling" and other terms that you use in aboundance in your posts. Anyone is free to define technical terms in any way they like. But if this meaning is different from what other people (a lot of people) accept and work with, then, indeed, any convergence towards some intersubjective "truth" is impossible. Not that those other people are involved in some world-wide fallacy or "plot". Claiming THIS would be a fallacy.
By the way - it would indeed be a fraud if an engineering discipline had no methods to validate or correct beliefs, theories or hypotheses. It would be a non-science, or (excusez le mot) a "quack science". Fortunately (what a relief!) this is not the case. Of course, you may disagree with the relevant arguments that can be found in the easily obtainable literature - you have every right to do so. But, mind you, in doing so you are taking dolphins for sharks.
Best regards
Dear Dr. Brzezinski,
It is a human nature to be biased towards arguments he/she strongly agrees with. Please look at the thread. I am defending myself from hostile criticism. I am beginning to realize, how complex it is to subvert a dominant paradigm. Please read the attached PDF to understand, what kind of dominant paradigms can be and must be subverted. Let me summarize it briefly:
A paradigm sift from dominant paradigm to a new paradigm is nearly as hard as converting a high priest from his beloved religion to a new religion having no followers and no one ever heard. For example, most Christian pastors know about Buddhism and Buddhist priests know about Christianity. Many pastors or priests have healthy respect for other great religions. But subverting a dominant paradigm by making him accept new paradigm no one ever heard is like asking him to convert to a new unknown or unheard of religion started by you. Few people might pretend to listen (even though uncomfortable), if one advocating such conversion is highly respected person such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Bill Gates or Elon Musk. Advocating new paradigm by unknown person like me from India, China or Africa is perceived as quackery. How to overcome such perception of quackery?
Although, Dr. Peter and I engage in heated discussion, I believe such debate is helping me gain more and more insights into the reality (for getting closer to the ultimate Truth and facts). This debate is about components and CBD in the context of designing, engineering and development (or building) products (not in the context of grammar or chemical compounds). Decedent or heterodox views are always opposed and challenged, which is not bad as long as it is civilized. Decedent or heterodox views expand the boundaries of discourse, while orthodox defends status-quo, even if it is flawed.
The reality in the context of product design is: each product is created by primarily two kinds of parts (i) parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled, which are popularly known or referred to as components (a part that is not conducive to be assembled is not referred to as a component), and (ii) other kind of parts such as ingredient and/or reusable parts such as metals, steel, cement, alloys, plastic, wood, rubber or specialized material such as silicon-wafers (e.g. to make computer chips) or lead-acid to make batteries etc.
Unfortunately, software researchers have been referring to the second kind of parts as components for past 50 years. So, in effect we (i.e. software community and experts) are fooling ourselves and rest of the world that we already have components and achieved CBD. Today, no known kind of so called software components are conducive to be assembled (or plugged-in) by any stretch of imagination.
P.S: Each of the products is built by assembling components, where each of the basic components is built by using other kind of parts such as ingredient and/or reusable parts. Today each software product is directly built by using other kind of parts such as ingredient and/or reusable parts, without using particular kind of parts (known as components) that can be assembled.
Let me quote Shakespeare to illustrate Dr. Peter’s argument: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". He is asking me to pick another name like Wudget for “the parts that can be assembled”. He insists that names don’t matter. But I tried that and it didn’t work, because a gestalt shift is not possible by simultaneously seeing few parts of one paradigm and other parts of another paradigm – It is a proven and widely accepted fact.
It is a human nature to be biased towards arguments he/she strongly agrees with. Questioning conventional wisdom always perceived to be rude or arrogant. Saying the truth “the Sun is at the center” 400 years ago offended the common sense and enraged experts. It was considered quackery. They accused Galileo’s support to heliocentric model was for promoting his astrology.
You are free to prove me wrong: I am saying that “a particular kind of parts that can be assembled” (popularly known as components) are not yet invented for software products. I have 6 US patents for such components. They can be invalidated, if such components already exist. My contention is, we must subvert the existing dominant paradigm because it is rooted in flawed belief system by painting perception of reality that is close to objective reality.
Best Regards,
Raju
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering