Dear Dr. Peter,

            A paradigm shift is almost as complex as religious conversion. Trying to convert a group of orthodox people into a new religion no one ever heard about before. New paradigm is like a new religion no one ever heard about.

            Only saving grace is, any real scientist and competent researcher understands that the “scientific method” is paramount. The sacred duty is pursuit of absolute Truth, which also includes getting closer and closer to absolute Truth.

            Almost every known large physical product we know is designed and built by “assembling components”, where each component is designed and built individually free from spaghetti code. The components are assembled to make sure they fit together perfectly and function together as expected. Until they fit together perfectly or function as expected, the product is disassembled to refine and test each of the components individually free from spaghetti code and the components are re-assembled to make sure they fit together perfectly and function together as expected – This is what I meant by the CBD (Component Based Design).

            Each component can be redesigned and tested individually free from spaghetti code. The product development and evolution is free from spaghetti design, if over 95% of the features and functionality is implemented in such components (where each component’s development and evolution is free from spaghetti design). In this reality, we already know 80% of the picture. If we use different newly invented terminology, it would take a month to provide a convincing evidence.

            We can never invent such components, if we don’t know the difference between “component” and “part”; as well as difference between “assembling” and “composing”. Toady the term “component” is used to refer to “part” (having certain given properties) – It is flaw. I am providing counter-evidence. Likewise, Toady the term “assembling” is used to refer to “composing” or “merging” - It is flaw. I am providing counter-evidence.

            The scientific process is broken in computer science. In basic science, one can use counter-evidence to expose the errors or flawed assumptions. If we want to make computer science real science, we must take counter evidences and anomalies very seriously. I know, you want to help me, but I hope you understand my perspective.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Dear Dr. Peter,

You said: Remember that you have to have a hook in order to make a fish bite. What is your hook? A good story? A funny joke? You need something first.

            Dr. Peter, thank you for the suggestion. :-) How about this joke: Respected researchers don’t want logic or reasoning (or scientific method). They want magic or illusion. That is the reason fake god men are more famous (or successful) than real scientists. Researchers don’t want real answers (or discoveries) but illusion of real answers (or discoveries). Magic needs just few minutes, but Real answers need 2 to 3 days to convince.

            One thing we both agree is that “Computer Science” is not a real science (that can strictly follow the scientific method to discover objective reality), not even pseudo science (that try to follow the “scientific method”, even if it can’t strictly follow the scientific method to discover subjective things). Computer Science is fake science because it blatantly violates the “scientific method”. No attempt is made to follow scientific method.

One thing we disagree: You think computer science can’t be real science. I disagree. I think, it can be and must be transformed into real science.

Q: What is each of the Sciences (or Scientific Disciplines such as botany, zoology, chemistry, bacteriology, virology, physics or mycology)?

Ans: Any scientific discipline is a BoK (Body of Knowledge) acquired by employing “scientific method” (and other proven methods such as mathematics and valid logic or reasoning to acquire falsifiable theories that can be falsified by using empirical evidence).

            Even the basic natural sciences were not real sciences, until the flawed geocentric paradigm was replaced by heliocentric paradigm by exposing the flawed belief at the root of the geocentric paradigm. The very players of the scientific revolution (e.g. Galileo  and Descartes) played major role in shaping the “scientific method”, which has been continue to evolve even in the 20th by the contributions of great philosophers such as Sir Popper and Dr. Kuhn.

            I am only asking software researchers to employ scientific method to discover the nature and objective facts about the components and CBD (Component Based Design) of physical products – This is invaluable to invent real software components for achieving real-CBSD that can eliminate spaghetti design and code.

              I am also asking software researchers to employ scientific method to discover the functioning and objective facts about the neurons and how they form and function in neural networks – This is invaluable for achieving real AI (Artificial Intelligence).

                   I am sure, I can provide convincing proof using the “scientific method, if a team of 10 software researchers can be assembled in a room for 2 to 3 days. But unfortunately I am not able to assemble such team.

            I am sure, you already knew my argument: 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

Best Regards,

Raju

Research Proposal Computer Science (Software) Must be Considered as an Indepen...

CB(S) D is  a standard way to design systems, due to its many advantages. But as usual there are also other considerations(cost, flexibility, speed, compatibility with legacy systems,  ...) which also influence the choice or rejection of this methology.  So I do not see your need to 'convince' todays experts .......Just check a book store to find numerous books on CBD!

Dear Dr. Chroust,

            My contention is that existing CBSD paradigm is rooted in untested and unproven 50 to 60 years old flawed beliefs, as the 16th century geocentric paradigm was rooted in 2300 years old flawed belief (i.e. the Earth is static at the center).

            I am sure you agree that CBD must use real components. That is, using fake software components (i.e. any other kinds of parts) can’t be CBD for software.

             Only components can be literally assembled and disassembled. No other kind of parts can be disassembled and re-assembled. Today no known kind of so called software components can be assembled, but are composed.

             Today, each kind of software component is defined as software parts either having given useful properties or conforming to a so called component model. Hence, today each of the known kind of software components is nothing more than a kind of software parts (i.e. fake components). Using such fake components cannot be CBD for software.

              Lets look at objective reality for CBD: Each of the many large products we know (e.g. jet-fighter, car or computers) is built by “assembling components”, where each large component likely custom designed to fit juts one product model and each component can be disassembled (e.g. to redesign and test it individually outside of the product) and re-assembled. My contention is that, software products can also be built by assembling real components, when we discover real-software components (instead of fooling ourselves by insisting useful parts are components and using such fake components is CBSD). Please refer to the attachment to the top question: WhatIsMeantByCBD.pdf

            I have been struggling to get an opportunity to provide convincing proof for more than 5 years. I have been doing research on such real-CBSD for over 17 years and secured many patents in the USA (e.g. 7827527, 7840937, 8527943, 8392877, 8578329 and 9058177) so far. I believe, I can convince any team of experts within 2 to 3 days.

           Everyone is insisting, I must convince him within a short presentation. I believe, it is impossible for any one to provide convincing proof with in a day. Assuming that the CBD is using reusable components has been preventing us the see the reality. In fact, objective reality I summarized perceived to be strange, wired or even heresy, in the context of software. Please see the chronology of events to understand the complicity of such Gestalt shift: http://real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Braun,

            Do you think great discoverers Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo are not convincing personalities? Why Copernicus scared to publish his discovery until after his death?

            It is not simple to go against deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. I am sure, you must be aware of the famous book “The Structure of Scientific Revolution” by Thomas Kuhn. A great synopsis was created by Dr. Pajares at: https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/kuhnsyn.html

The first paragraph says, in that I marked three mistakes:

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".

              Today software researchers doing all the three mistakes. For example, today there is no proof that reusable parts are components. You tell them that and they think you are crazy. If you insist they must see a counter evidence, they thing you are fraud. I have been facing for years.

            Until I started telling this inconvenient Truth, I was a successful business man. Almost every business call used end amicably and they used to call me when they need solutions in my area of core competency. I have no opponents.

                   Today people who used to be my friends and collogues (who used to like me) started avoiding me. I never imagined this kind of thing could happen in 21st century. Until you experience this, you can’t understand what I have been experiencing.

               Even you have greatest pleasing personality, you can’t say to a proud and respected 16th century astronomer or philosopher every thing you think you know is a lie. It infuriates, if you say to a 16th century proud astronomer that the epicycles and retrograde motions you so proudly claimed to discovered are illusions. How could any one provide convincing evidence within one hour, even if he has greatest pleasing personality?

            The cheater uses your prejudice and preconceived notions against you. He pleases you by telling what you want to here. He never questions your convictions. But saying the Truth “the Sun is at the center” in 16th century insulted common sense and infuriated proud astronomers.

             Today saying the Truth (i.e. objective realities for CBD of physical products) such as there is a huge difference between “assembling” and “composing” infuriated many CBSE researchers, the terms parts and components are not synonyms and there is huge difference between them angered many CBSE experts. They have been using those terms for past 50 years as synonyms, by concluding they are same.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Dear Dr. Peter,

            There is a research institute by name IIIT in my home town Hyderabad. They claim to be a research university on software and information technology. They conducted a R&D showcase few weeks back and invited community form industry and other researchers.

            The SERC (software engineering research centre) brain washing the students with the geocentric paradox of the software engineering. I requested for an opportunity to present a counter evidence.

            I told couple of the researchers manning the SERC rooms at the showcase and told them I invented real-software-components that can achieve the real-CBD for software. I requested for an opportunity to present counter evidence.

            One of the professors by name Prof. Kesav Nori said his students and former colleagues at TCS.com had patents on software components and component composition. I suspected that he was lying, because being passionately doing research in this area for 18 years I know almost everything in the area of CBSD. I told him components are assembled but not composed. I searched TCS patents and none of them are about the components or composition.

            They insisted that I must send them information by email and they would respond by looking at all the evidence. They didn’t respond for a week, so I sent follow-up email and waited couple of days and sent another email. Then I got this email, where Prof. Kesav Nori instructing all his colleagues not to talk to me:

From Prof. Kesav Nori to researchers in his team: I suggest that no one respond to Raju Chiluvuri, as it is a waste of time and he does not value foundations. If he claims to have patents and a struggle for 16 years of research, why isn't he the richest man on earth? He does not care to define components and their compositionality, yet he claims a place in the sun for Component Based Seoftware Development!

            Dr. Peter, you know, I won’t take this kind of insults lightly, particularly if he is a liar. He has no basic decency to talk to me directly. I wrote strong worded emails to him as well as heads of the departments, knowing very well most institutes are den of thieves (they only support their own). They take salaries from tax payer money but don’t care about research or facts.

            They are more interested in side businesses such as running Java training institute such as talentsprint.com by charging lot of money (but using campus buildings and government funds for training or skill development to unskilled outside under graduates). Is it too much to ask them to fulfil their duty as researchers, while they are taking money from the government (by calling themselves research institute). No body asking them to not run side businesses, but not at the expense of their main duty of research.

After few emails, he sent one line response >>> Are parts components? Not in your world it seems. 

                 Even simple Google search “difference between a component and part” reviles that they are not synonyms (as word horse is not a synonym to word animals). Likewise, “assembling” is not synonym “composing”. We are only fooling ourselves by defining CBD is composing parts (having given set of useful properties). This diverted research effort in to a wrong path by closed important research paths and areas.

              “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” by Shakespeare to imply naming doesn’t change things. But it does. If anyone uses “rat” as a synonym to “rose”? If nobody knows what he meant, if ask for 3 rats (assuming he would get roses to give it to his girlfriend on valentine day), he gets 3 rats but not roses. Today CBSD is getting “parts” and not “components”, because they are asking for parts.

             Each term such as “rose”, “component” or “assembling” is used to mean certain specific thing. The words and terminology are a shared protocol to acquire BoK and to communicate or exchange our ideas or knowledge. We can’t redefine selectively few terms to fool over selves and expect the objective reality to change itself to fit our twisted perception of reality. It is impossible to convince anyone in 30 minutes, who were brain washed for 50 years by the geocentric paradox of the software engineering.

            In the context of the physical products, the CBD is a vast tacit BoK (Body of Knowledge). Unfortunately, selectively changed meaning of few terms and during past 50 years succeeded in creating a paradox or illusion. You suggested to use new terms for “components” and “assembling”.

   I tried in the past and failed. I have to use the terms “components” and “assembling” to map onto the vast tacit BoK (Body of Knowledge), because it is impossible to create a huge BoK that can paint new paradigm for such huge tacit BoK. We  can't redraw the whole paradigm for 2% to 3% mistakes in the terminology (although they are crucial). 

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

                 If you want short proof in few minutes, I must stick to objective or proven facts. I like to prove that existing CBSD paradigm is rooted in 50 to 60 years old tacit untested beliefs, which were never validated and flawed.

                 It is well documented and common sense fact: Any investigation would be diverted in to a wrong path, if it relies on flawed beliefs, prejudice, corrupted clues or evidence. Likewise, any research effort end up diverted into a wrong path, if it relies on flawed beliefs or axioms. For example, mankind’s research efforts diverted into a wrong path 2300 years ago by relying on flawed belief “the Earth is static at the center”.

                  The research efforts cannot be put on the right path until the error is exposed by exposing the Truth (where the Truth must be on the right path that can lead to discoveries of other Truths such as universal gravity). For example, the discovery of the Truth “the Sun is at the center” in 16th and early 17th century put the research efforts on the right path, which lead to so many new discoveries during past 350 years.

               Mankind still would be in the Dark Ages, if the error at the root of geocentric paradox were not yet exposed. No one wants to be stuck up in such geocentric paradox of their discipline for few hundred years. We can gain real or valid knowledge (i.e. about objective reality) that can get us closer and closer to the absolute Truth by only investing research efforts in the right path. We must have objective measures to make sure and ascertain that our research efforts are being invested in the right path.

               Keep in mind, Galileo was not punished for saying the Truth “the Sun is at the center”, but saying that the Earth is moving, which disputed the axiomatic belief. Please recall the famous murmur “And Yet It Moves”. If the error is exposed, it would take no time to discover the truth – After all there are fewer than 9 known planets. So there are only nine paths to choose and one of them must be true. The right path explains inexplicable anomalies and epicycles.

                     Today the biggest problem is proving that CBD requires real components. Using fake components is not CBD. Existing definitions for so called software components have no basic in reality or facts – In fact, the definitions are in clear contradiction to the reality we know about the components (e.g. such as components are not composed but assembled, while no known kind of software component is assembled).

               It takes no time to discover the essential properties of the components, once the error is exposed. If 500 people tried for discovering accurate definitions and/or objective description for the components, I am sure 10 experts could come up with very accurate definition and/or description within a month. Today no one else is trying to discover the Truth, by insisting that the Earth is static is an inalienable sacred unquestionable self-evident Truth for eternity (so to speak).

              Existing definitions for components are defended as inalienable sacred unquestionable self-evident Truth for eternity. So it is impossible to question inalienable sacred unquestionable self-evident Truth for eternity. No one in the world can provide convincing proof, if researchers disregard basic logic or scientific method.

               I wanted to prove that existing CBSD paradigm is rooted in untested beliefs, which are flawed. Trying to validate the tacit untested beliefs leads to discovering the Truth. This kind of error can never be exposed, if researchers prevent other from questioning the 50 to 60 years old primordial beliefs or myths by insisting that each of the myths is a sacred unquestionable self-evident Truth for eternity.

            If that is the case, software is a religion (rooted in sacred primordial myths), so let’s not fool our selves and others by saying otherwise. Only religion is not based of reasoning and evidence, any other discipline or field must be based on rational reasoning, reality and evidence, where reasoning, reality and evidence must be open for falsification.

               It is a religion, if any belief is not open for testing and empirical falsification. Do you agree that, any theory or assumption can be and must be questioned? If you agree, you have valid proof – Any counter-evidence that exposes any flawed belief (considered to be self-evident fact) is the valid proof.

              If a huge paradigm such as geocentric paradigm is rooted in 2300 years old primordial belief “the Earth is static”, a valid proof that exposes any such flawed belief at the root would invalidate the whole BoK accumulated for geocentric paradigm comprising of knowledge accumulated for 1800 years. If the definitions or decryptions for components and component based products are fundamentally flawed, whole BoK accumulated by relying on such flawed definitions would become invalid (e.g. illusions such as epicycles).

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Raju,

I'm sorry but you look just like Don Quixote attacking windmills, you bark at the wrong tree!

In order to sell your idea, it's not scientists you need to convince with fancy rhetoric but pragmatic software engineers developing real applications.  Just write a killer app with your revolutionary concept which would have been otherwise impossible or 100x more expensive and put Google out of business with it!  I'm only half-joking but following your thread on this forum, I'm utterly convinced that "the proof of the pudding is in the eating"!

Good luck!

Dear Mr. Martin,

            Not every body is as wealthy as Ford and owns an automobile factory to capture 50% market share to demonstrate his moving assembly line. For example, Eli Whitney’s invention of interchangeable components were demonstrated in the market place by Swinger sewing machines few years after Eli Whitney’s death.

            Any think you said requires investment of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars and an idea for killer product. Over hundred companies have technological expertise to build better things than Facebook or WhatsApp, but idea, vision and creativity counts – They inventers know what the users need and captured the imagination. These young men are like the Steven Spielberg of web applications – A great story tellers for capturing the imagination (by instinctively know what user wants) and backed by powerful marketing by investing hundreds of millions of dollars.

            Even the great products like spread-sheet were not invented by software engineers but by an accountant.  When I was working in the Silicon Valley, my job is to implement the required and features functionality provided by the marketing – I have no in depth knowledge in semi-conductor industry or financial analysis etc. My job was to implement the software in modules, so that each of the modules can be easily redesigned to keep up with evolving needs.

            Even if I had an idea for killer application like spread-sheet, it needs tens of millions of dollars investment. I don’t have that kind of money. With limited funds I have, I created most advanced GUI-library in the world for building complex 2D/3D graphics intensive real-time data driven web applications. It is the only GUI-API in the world capable of creating real-software-components. Unfortunately our customers are large enterprises. Now marketing this to enterprise customers requires several millions of dollars. 

             When one doesn’t have that kind of money, one must either give up or try every thing passable within his means. I am determined to try every thing passable within my means, because exposing the flawed beliefs at the root of software engineering paradigm revolutionize software engineering (as the flawed beliefs at the root of geocentric paradigm revolutionized basic sciences).

Best Regards,

Raju S Chiluvuri

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Any research for any scientific or engineering discipline must only rely on proven theories or facts, where the proven imply that it must be supported by well documented falsifiable proof and evidence. The documented proof can be falsified by finding valid counter evidence.

             It is a huge mistake to rely on untested assumption or belief by insisting that the belief is sacred unquestionable self-evident fact for eternity.  The 50 to 60 years old assumptions that lead to the flawed definitions for components and CBD were not documented. But we know for fact that, it was inconceivable 50 years ago to invent real-software-components using then available knowledge and best technologies such as Fortran and assembly languages.

                  But advancements in software, it is today a trivial task to invent real-software-components, if we gain knowledge about the objective reality such as essential properties of the components and essential aspects of CBD. If you know what is a components, you would know that none of the known kind of components don’t even remotely resembles the components.

             If you know, what the elephant is, what are the chances you don’t know the sticking differences between the elephants and other kind of animals such as cat, rat, big or buffalo. None of them remotely resemble the elephants. Mankind has no problem to positively differentiate between the physical components for the real-CBD and other kinds of parts. It is possible to discover the real-software-components, so that it is possible to positively identify the real-software-components and to differentiate between the real-software-components and other kinds of software parts.

        I am trying to prove that existing definitions in software for so called components for real CBD are fundamentally flawed.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

You don't need to be wealthy or go back to Ford time to have example of success. Linus started publishing Linux as a student in 1991 and see what happened! 

If your GUI-library is so much better that what ever else is out there, put it open source so a mass of people start using it in real projects.  Given your business model, you have lots of choice and could even charge for commercial products using your library.  There is Kickstarter and the like if you need funding.

So far, you just gave me reasons NOT TO try selling your idea to software developers with excuses of big money involved in order to continue fighting an uphill rhetorical battle with computer scientists who ARE NOT going to develop applications anyway!

If your library is really much easier to use and extend because of your new component design, people using it will notice and your discovery will spread.  And if it's just better in your mind and do not bring a significant advantage to currently used techniques, it will simply keep quiet on your GitHub repository!

As I said, I'm STILL utterly convinced that "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" and that it doesn't need to cost millions! 

Regards,

Bruno

Dear Dr. Martin,

            Why do you think, I am not trying that. May be I am not as good as Linus. Linus didn’t question the validity of the existing paradigm, but realized the popularity of Unix and created a open source version. He did that at right time. He did that as class project by changing Minix. He didn’t plan for it success. It just happened. Later, Scott McNeil former CEO of Sun admitted that his biggest mistake was not making Solaris open source.  

Dr. Martin, please see my previous message copied below:

How do real scientists define nature or properties of things such as plants, animals, bacteria or viruses?

Ans: They look at thousands of specimens of each specie with open mind and scientific eye to meticulously document properties shared by each of the specimen. Then in light of the physical evidence and empirical results they debate between the minor differences found in the documented observations to build consensus, so that the properties are closest to the observable and testable reality. They don’t blindly define nature and properties and expect the nature to change the course to satisfy the definitions (as software researchers have been doing).

Except myself, I haven’t found any one looking at the physical components and CBD with a scientific eye to define the nature and properties of the components.

              Dr. Martin, you have no idea, what kind resistance hostile reaction such simple disruptive observations face. If I am not facing it for nearly a decade, I was also naïve to believe it is simple to explain things like above or promote open source. I was banned form interacting with researchers at IIIT-Hyderabad (claim to be research institute) for raising inconvenient facts: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_so_many_experts_react_so_viciously_and_resort_to_insults_for_requesting_an_opportunity_to_demonstrate_counter_evidence_for_flawed_beliefs

          I haven’t done anything to provoke them except sending polite requests to give me an opportunity to present counter evidence and to demonstrate my discoveries. The first reply I got is banning me form interacting with other researchers in the University. Only interaction I had was through emails, after meeting them in a R&D Showcase and they asked me to send information by email to set up a meeting. The meeting lasted couple of minutes and was professional.

You said: As I said, I'm STILL utterly convinced that "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" and that it doesn't need to cost millions! 

               This may be true, if you get lucky or if you did it at right time or at right place or have right marketing skills or found right message. There are so many ifs. It is not guaranteed.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

"Why do you think, I am not trying that."... you haven't really answer the question and keep coming back to me with rhetoric (I certainly won't go over pages and pages of your arguments). 

I'm "just" a mathematician who happens to be working in software development for the last 18 years.  This career made me temper my idealistic views with a good dose of pragmatism and I'm just trying to make you realize what makes software developers, people who would ultimately use your stuff and new design methods, ticks!  If you can't realize this, I think you are doomed to sink deeper and deeper into this academic "persona non grata" character.  Life is too short for that!

Again, I don't want it to sound rude but it's how I, and certainly thousands if not millions of software developers, would see it.

Good luck,

Bruno

Dear Mr. Martin,

            I have been living this nightmare for over a decade. I have to respectfully disagree with your understanding. If you want to use my library, do you think you can use it without the permission of your customers and management? In enterprises, any thing you use must be approved by many non-technical people. They look at many things such as how widespread the product usage, and if Google or IBM is supporting or using the software?

                   They would ask you one question (if you recommend a product you like), can you guarantee that the product is going to be around for 5 years and who is going to support it, if it has bugs when new browsers are released? Would you take risk on my word? But you would, if our company raises US$10 million funds from respected VCs and have impressive clients.

                Please don’t be naïve. I worked in leading enterprises in the Silicon Valley since 1988. No one risks millions of dollars investment on a product by using fledgling GUI-API. It is not like consumer apps such as WhatApp, Uber or Facebook to start using for fun in minutes. Please understand the catch-22 situation. You need to get critical volume, so that at least 1% enterprises willing to adopt our GUI-API. How do you get such critical volume, without luck or certain credible partnership? So I have been trying to find credible partners and/or to build applications that can demonstrate the power of next generation GUI applications for web. This is slow painful process.

Best Regards,

Raju

Look at how the Eigen, Catch and the Boost C++ libraries started as pet project of one or a few developers and are now widely used even in big companies. There are lots of examples contradicting the "millions of dollars needed to start" model, maybe you should look at how they did it in more details. 

Of course, it will happen over years and Google won't use your stuff next month but in the meantime, your ideas will spread and your library improve with the real feedback you will get from real users. Had you gone this path a decade ago, you might have been one of the library I was giving as an example!

Good luck,

Bruno

http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

http://www.boost.org/

https://github.com/philsquared/Catch

Dear Mr. Martin,

            One needs a break. Usually one needs to explore many ways to get a break. I am doing that. No two situations are alike. Even though, I created complex GUI-components and component hierarchies using SVG, technologies such as SVG X3DOM for building complex 2D/3D components was not supported in the browsers until 2013.

            You gave few examples, but do you know how many other open source projects failed? What is the success rate? May be less than 10%. None of the JavaScript frameworks popular 10 years ago no longer in use.

            The Truth (i.e. the Sun is at the center) discovered 400 years ago still valid and considered greatest discovery in the history of science. Mankind still would be in the dark ages, if the discovery were not yet proven.  Likewise, the objective realities such as nature and properties of components are not going to change. But many software researchers feel it is scam, if ask them to discover the Truth.

Q: How do real scientists define nature or properties of things such as plants, animals, bacteria or viruses?

Ans: They look at thousands of specimens of each specie with open mind and scientific eye to meticulously document properties shared by each of the specimen. Then in light of the physical evidence and empirical results they debate between the minor differences found in the documented observations to build consensus, so that the properties are closest to the observable and testable reality. They don’t blindly define nature and properties and expect the nature to change the course to satisfy the definitions (as software researchers have been doing).

            It is 100 times more complex to discover the nature and properties (we learned so far) of bacteria or viruses than discovering the nature and properties of plain old large physical components. I feel, exploring this avenue is also equally promising.

            I am aware of risks and prepared to take calculated risks. Bringing in Kuhinian paradigm shift is complex endeavor, which is fraught with risks. I learned many things that don’t work by failing after putting my best efforts. Based on talent and marketing skills, others could be successful in the ways in which I failed. So I am not saying they don't work. I am only saying that they wont work for me (i.e. my talent and best effort is not good enough). Until I find something that works for me, I will continue exploring every promising way or opportunity. There is no guarantee, I will be successful but I am not a person who gives up.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

             I want to prove existing definitions and descriptions for so called software components are fundamentally flawed by using scientific method for gaining valid knowledge (see proof below):

                Software researchers are confused between these two things (1) doing theoretical research to expand the theoretical foundation by discovering new valid knowledge and (2) doing the engineering research to invent new useful things by relying on the theoretical foundation.

               Software researchers are not able to eliminate the spaghetti code/design, because the existing knowledge for components and CBD is rooted in fundamentally flawed theoretical foundation (i.e. the knowledge is derived by relying on fundamentally flawed beliefs in the theoretical foundation or Body of Knowledge).

                We must discover the reality about the components (what they are and what they are not) and about the CBD (what it is and what it is not). Existing so called software components "are not" components. Using such fake software components is “not CBD for software”. It is possible to invent real software components, if we try to discover the nature and accurate description (i.e. a set of properties) of the physical components using scientific method.

Please read at least first few paragraphs of my yet another valid proof.

Is it too much to ask: Just observe the physical components with unbiased open mind without any preconceived notions and describe what you see.

Proven method for gaining valid knowledge and wisdom or insights: I proposed certain properties or description for the components by relying on my meticulous observation of thousands of physical components. Anyone can test them. If he thinks I am wrong, he can challenge my proposed description to push our knowledge closer to the Truth. Likewise, any researcher can observe the physical components with scientific eye and propose properties and/or accurate description. Me or anyone else can test the proposed description or properties. If I or anyone think he is wrong, we can test it and challenge the observations to push our knowledge (in the right path) closer to the Truth.

              Dr. Peter, if you gain this simple knowledge about the nature and properties of the physical components for the CBD, you would realize that it is a trivial task to invent real-software-components necessary for the CBD. The biggest problem is the huge resistance to gain the essential knowledge.

              This knowledge exposes that the existing definitions for components are fundamentally flawed (as the discovery “the Sun is at the center” exposed the beliefs at the root of 16th century geocentric paradox evolved for 1800 years). There is only one right path for scientific progress, where the right path must go through the Truths (e.g. the Sun is at the center, universal gravity or the true properties of the components).

               There is no other path for real progress. Software engineering would be stuck in the geocentric paradox of software, even if takes 1800 years, until software researchers realize this simple error (e.g. by avoiding proven biggest mistake).

 “Nature is relentless and unchangeable, and it is indifferent as to whether its hidden reasons and actions are understandable to man or not.”  -- Galileo

P.S: Keep in mind difference between many possible wrong paths (each wrong path by relying on one or more flawed beliefs, clues or evidence) and only one possible right path (by relying on the Truth or observations that are closest to the relentless and unchangeable singular objective reality - Nature and properties of physical beings such as components, plants, animals, viruses or bacteria).

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Thank you for pushing me to create yet another valid proof (see attached PDF). Your were annoying :-(, but made me think.

               Your annoying comments persistent obnoxious remarks :-) made me collect and compose my thoughts to create this valid proof – This proof would stand even toughest scrutiny in the court of law, if it ends up in courts. Thank you!

           I am sure, even this proof cannot convince anyone within few hours :-(. Even if they are convinced within a day, doubts and skepticism sweeps in within few days. Hence require frequent booster shots of such proofs at regular intervals, until they start creating and using real-software-components, which can be assembled.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

Is the Nature & Properties of Physical Things Ideological Choice?

            If real scientists want to know “what is animal”, they go out into the field to meticulously observe numerous animals to learn “what is an animal” and “what is not an animal”. If there is a doubt or dispute such as if a kind of animals (e.g. dolphins) gives birth to babies or lays eggs, such dispute or doubt is addressed by observing the animals (i.e. dolphins). Real scientists only interested in gaining knowledge about objective reality for relying on the reality to discoverer the Truth.

           Trying to win any dispute or disagreement at the expense of the Truth (e.g. by ignoring or hiding the objective reality) is unethical or fraud. It is a fraud to manipulate the observations, data or experimental results. Ignoring counter evidence is a fraud. No real scientist or researcher wants to win a dispute at the expense of the Truth. Any research for acquiring knowledge about reality is not a power struggle by exploiting biases, greed or ideological differences. How can it be ethical in computer science, if it is unethical in every other scientific discipline?

          Software researchers have been struggling for decades to build software by using the CBD (where CBD implies creating or building software components and using the components) by blindly defining “what is component” (by ignoring the objective reality about the physical components). They have been refusing to observe the real physical components and real CBD products (e.g. computers, cars, large machines or airplanes) created by assembling the components.

         In the existing CBSE/CBSD paradigm, the nature and properties of each kind of software components is defined (by ignoring objective reality) based on subjective preferences, wishful thinking, bias, prejudices or preconceived notions. For example, to give an analogy: A group of software researchers insist they prefer that the animal delivers babies, while another group of researchers insist they prefer that the animal lays eggs. Yet another group may define that the animal split into two (as the gremlins) after eating and grown to certain size.

           The nature and properties of physical things (including the physical components) is not subjective ideological choices. The nature and properties not open for subjective debate and not open for subjective biases or preferences. First one must observe and document the reality: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/Real-CBD.html

           Am I the only one thinks common sense, reasoning and objective reality matters? Can you show an example anywhere else in the world, where software researchers struggled to meticulously observe and document the objective reality about the physical components and physical products build by assembling the components for acquiring all the necessary BoK (Body of Knowledge) about the objective reality and using the BoK for defining the nature and properties of the software components and the essence or purpose of the CBD?

           If some asks a question or wants to know about the nature or properties of the components, am I the only software researcher in the world feeling that we must observe the real components to answer the question? If you want to acquire new valid knowledge about the components, you investigate or analyze the objective information acquired by meticulously observing the components or conducting experiments on the components. Isn’t it common sense?

                 What is the CBD (Component Based Design or Development)? The common sense answer briefly is: designing and building a product by creating or building each of its components individually and building the product by assembling the components. Isn’t common sense that, using fake physical components (i.e. any other kind of parts) is not real CBD? Likewise, real CBD for software requires using real software components. The physical components are very special kind of parts, where the components share very unique properties. For example, except the components, no other kind of parts can be assembled (i.e. but composed, mixed, painted or merged etc.), while the components are the only parts that are designed to be “assembled” (or plugged-in).

           I could not find any evidence that any other software researcher or professional in this world have tried to understand the objective reality about the components and CBD, by observing the real components and the real CBD of physical products, where real CBD imply assembling the real components.

        Dr. Peter,You must stop reading those fiction books (e.g. books on CBSE or software components and software engineering). They are pure fiction. To know the reality, you must go out into the field to observe the reality such as how the components are created and built individually and how they are assembled to build the products (cars, computers, airplanes or machines).

         Isn't common sense: How the real scientists go about doing real research? They observe and document the objective reality -This is real science. This is Fiction: Blindly defining the nature or properties to suite their ideological biases, greed or prejudice, by ignoring the reality or fact. I hope you can see the clear difference between real science and pure fiction. All those software books on the CBSD or software components are nothing but fiction.

P.S: The above 2 paragraphs is yet another valid proof {Bingo! I hit the 30 seconds mark :-}. Thank You! :-).

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Dear Dr. Peter,

            I feel that you understand what I meant. If you were me, how would you say 30 seconds convincing summary? I am sure any real scientist agrees that: the Nature or Properties of Physical Things are not a matter of Ideological Choices?

             Also you know that: the Nature or Properties of Physical Things (i.e. components for CBD or neurons for neural networks and for AI) have been defined as matter of Ideological Choices by software researchers. -- This is the root cause for the software crisis.

               Dr. Peter, keep in mind not all scientific contributions are in the form of new discoveries. Exposing flawed tacit beliefs at the root of a complex scientific paradigm is also very useful scientific contributions.

              Please recall Galileo’s famous defiant murmurs “and yet it moves” after the inquisition. He had to concede during the inquisition that the Earth is static, to avoid death sentence. The greatest discovery (i.e. Sun is at center by Copernicus) in the history of science didn’t accomplish much except exposing the 2300 years old flawed belief (i.e. the Earth is static) at the very root of our scientific knowledge until 16th century.  Relying on the 2300 years old flawed belief diverted research efforts into a wrong path resulted in flawed geocentric paradigm supported by huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) accumulated for 1800 years. Exposing this error at the root in 17th century put the research efforts onto the right path.

             Mankind’s scientific knowledge still would be in the Dark Ages, if the error at the root of 16th century geocentric paradigm were not exposed. Hence, exposing flawed beliefs at the very root of any deeply entrenched scientific or engineering paradigm (i.e. discipline of science or engineering) that evolved for long time and accumulated huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) is far more valuable than few dozen new discoveries that add to the BoK for expanding such flawed scientific or engineering paradigm (i.e. discipline of science or engineering).

          As you know, I can demonstrate thousands of real software components for real-CBSD. Just requesting politely for giving me an opportunity for presenting my evidence, I was banned by this so called research institute from interacting with so called researchers: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_so_many_experts_react_so_viciously_and_resort_to_insults_for_requesting_an_opportunity_to_demonstrate_counter_evidence_for_flawed_beliefs.

              Except very few, most government funded research institutes in India are filled with corrupted crony intellectuals, who are more interested in side business than research. If I am wrong, they can sue me. I could sue them, but may not be useful. Having the largest software work force in the world, no original contribution came out of India. Not because lack of good researchers in India but any good research is crushed by these corrupt crony intellectuals.

P.S: This conference http://memocode.irisa.fr/2017/ is interesting. I will look into it.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Dear Dr. Peter,

            I am not trying to win beauty or popularity contest. Almost every one hated the Truth (the Sun is at the center). Someone got to do the dirty work. No one else in the world can tell this kind of Truth with limited resources and means, in a manner you are expecting. If you have any great ideas, please tell me.

            Such discoveries create extreme bad first impression, which is nearly impossible to overcome. For example, please recall your first impression about 3 to 4 years ago, when we had heated debates. Copernicus chose to not promote his discovery, so insisted his discovery must not be published only after his death (smart guy :-). Keller chose to just document his discoveries but never tried to prove or convince any one else. Another smart move :-)

            But Galileo imprisoned for life for trying hard to convince other researchers, which infuriated them and they played active role in inducing the inquisition and the conviction. A dumb choice ;-(. I have two choices (1) give up after documenting all the evidence, which I already done in my patents and my web-site http://real-software-components.com. (2) The other choice is, keep trying with all available means (with my limited budget) by exploring all available options (with in my limited means). I choose the second path. May be a foolish choice :-(.

            Someone got to do the dirty work. If I failed, no one is going to accidentally stubble onto real-software-components for GUI applications for web and struggle for 16 years after accidentally discovering real-software-components. There was a limited window existed from 1999 to 2003 for stumbling onto real-software-components for GUI applications (when web browsers are not too powerful as today or not too primitive).

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Today the nature and properties of components are mater of Ideological Choice. Almost every software expert must agree. For any real scientist this single statement is more than enough valid proof: The Nature and Properties of Physical Things (including physical components) are not mater of Ideological Choice?

             Go ask any real scientist in the world, I am sure, he would confirm that that The Nature and Properties of Physical Things (including physical components) are not mater of Ideological Choice?

          There is a famous saying: You can wake up a sleeping person; you can not wake up someone who is pretend to be sleeping. I can convince someone who really not understood the proof (if given time), but it is impossible to convince someone pretending.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Dear Dr. Peter,

            You said: I'm going to guess it's something like "there is no general agreement among practitioners and/or researchers as to what makes a good component in/of/for component-based design"

            Bongo! You are right. Is it OK to reach such agreement among practitioners and/or researchers for any other physical specie such as animals, plants, bacteria or viruses as to what makes a good specie, by refusing to even look at even a single specimen belong to the specie)?

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Assume you are great painter. You were asked to pain an elephant. What would you do, if you don’t know what is elephant, if it is a building, tree or animal? After some enquire you came to know that it is a kind of animal. Can you paint a dog and call it a kind of elephant? Can you paint a cat and call it another kind of elephant? Can you paint a rat and call it yet another kind of elephant?

This way even the most talented painters can never paint an elephant – A trivial task even a school kid can do, if you show him an elephant.

            Software researchers wanted to eliminate software crisis by building products by inventing (i.e. painting) methods for creating or building “components” and build the product by “assembling” the components. They supposed to investigate for acquiring “valid” knowledge about the reality such as what is component and what is meant by assembling?

            Painting a rat and calling it yet another kind of elephant is wrong. Likewise, defining each kind of software parts (having a given set of useful properties) is a kind of component is wrong. Defining CBD is assembling such fake components (even though the fake components are in fact composed, by using the term assembling synonym to the term composed).

            Without observing the reality for accurately describing even the most brilliant software engineers can never create (or paint) the components - A trivial task even a junior programmer can do, if he understands the accurately describing by observing the reality.

“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.” . Galileo Galilee

“We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves” (or “You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him discover it in himself.”) --  Galileo Galilee

“Where the senses fail us, reason must step in.” --  Galileo Galilee

            The above quotes are particularly relevant in this context, because they were made in similar context, where a mature scientific paradigm was evolved by relying on flawed beliefs.

"By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox" --  Galileo Galilee

       For example, science fiction movies or books maintain a paradox by defining or inventing nature without any consideration to reality or facts. But real progress requires relying on facts by discovering nature of each kind of physical beings (e.g. functional-components) or phenomenon (e.g. real-CBD).

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

           “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” by Shakespeare to imply naming doesn’t change things. But it does. If anyone uses “rat” as a synonym to “rose”? If nobody knows what he meant, if ask for 3 rats (assuming he would get roses to give it to his girlfriend on valentine day), he gets 3 rats but not roses. Today CBSD is getting “parts” and not “components”, because they are asking for parts.

             Each term such as “rose”, “component” or “assembling” is used to mean certain specific thing (may be defined in oxford dictionary - Usually courts in India refer to oxford dictionary, in case of dispute). The words and terminology are a shared protocol to acquire BoK and to communicate or exchange our ideas or knowledge.

              You can’t understand my mother tongue Telugu and I can’t understand your Spanish. We can communicate in English as long as we are using terms, whose meanings are defined in the dictionary. If you use your own dictionary and I use my own dictionary, we as well communicate in Telugu and Spanish.

You said: 4-legged animal bigger than a flea

            I don’t think elephant is bigger than flea. My dictionary says a flea is a kind of dinosaurs bigger than whale – the largest animal exists today.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Thank you. The problem is Columbus wanted to discover India but ended up in Americas. He thought he landed in India and called the people red Indians. Of course, it was a great discovery for Europeans to colonise vast territory.

            Likewise, software researchers want to invent components to build the software products by assembling the components. They discovered few useful parts, which they start calling software components. The problem is today, they are not able to recognize real-components for CBD (due to the mistake).

            The components are the greatest engineering inventions. Can we imagine building large products like cars, computers, machinery or airplanes without using the components. By employing the proven and mature component based methods of complex physical products, we can increase software engineering productivity by 10 folds. If we want to leverage the entire knowledge and wisdom of CBD for the physical products, I can’t give another name for the “components”.

             Learning few new terms is much simpler than learning whole new language. Learning the whole proven and mature component based methods of complex physical products is many times more complex than learning few new terms (i.e. their real meaning in the reality in the first place).

         Let’s stick to original oxford dictionary definitions in the context of physical products. The software components imply components built for software products, where the software products are built by “assembling” the components.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Gruner,

            Thank you for referring to the book, which I found online at: http://www.evolocus.com/Textbooks/Fleck1979.pdf. The foreword was written by Dr. Kuhn himself, which is very interesting. A quick glance of few synopsis found on the web seems to be interesting, so I will read it at my own pace to digest the interesting perspective of nature of our scientific knowledge, our process of acquiring and evolution (or transformation) of the knowledge.

         But, I feel, this book may not be relevant (I may change my initial view after digesting the perspective in the book). It is unlikely to change my views, but it would help evolve my views. Please kindly review few important points in the first page of the attached PDF file. As you can see, the source of very knowledge for components and CBSE is wrong and the terminology used is fundamentally insidious and misleading. It is an error to altering the meanings of the terms to create wrong illusion (or altered perception).

P.S: The book you mentioned talks about the state and improving the scientific method (in certain contexts). The problem here is complete disregard and blatant violation of scientific method and even basic common sense as illustrated in the attached PDF.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Dear Dr. Peter,

You said: Don't mention Gailileo

            Galileo is my spiritual Guru and one of my demigods :-) for my scientific enlightenment and spirituality. I will try :-(, but it is hard for me to not mention one of his commandments (i.e. quotes) of great wisdom.

           Thank you for the reference of IEEE, but deadline is very close to prepare my proposal. My recent question is based on quotes of Galileo: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_or_must_be_the_real_source_for_the_authentic_Knowledge_or_theoretical_foundation_for_scientific_or_engineering_disciplines

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri