Voilà a most interesting and important question. A discoverer (thinker, innovator...) is fully aware -if at all- of the risks of his/her discover usually after the discovery was made, never before. Therefore, it is his/her hybrid what drives the discovery, a passion for knowledge, a sense of novelty. No one can stop a discoverer in such a process.

The risks always come from well established powers - at large. Novelty usually happens in history at a high human, or social, or personal cost. But the innovation is absolutely worth a - say, sacrifice. No question about this.

You need a sort of courage, bravery, madness if you wish for daring to change things or daring to take a brand new different scope. Such a madness or courage is however not fully aware, not completely self-conscious. It is, as I said, a sort of hybrid. You' ve got to have feel it in order to completely understand it...

Voilà a most interesting and important question. A discoverer (thinker, innovator...) is fully aware -if at all- of the risks of his/her discover usually after the discovery was made, never before. Therefore, it is his/her hybrid what drives the discovery, a passion for knowledge, a sense of novelty. No one can stop a discoverer in such a process.

The risks always come from well established powers - at large. Novelty usually happens in history at a high human, or social, or personal cost. But the innovation is absolutely worth a - say, sacrifice. No question about this.

You need a sort of courage, bravery, madness if you wish for daring to change things or daring to take a brand new different scope. Such a madness or courage is however not fully aware, not completely self-conscious. It is, as I said, a sort of hybrid. You' ve got to have feel it in order to completely understand it...

Dr. Maldonado,

            Thank you for your insightful comments and answer. Philosophy is a fascinating area I came to appreciate a lot during past few years of my struggles.

In the early years of such discovery, biggest problem is self-doubt. One end up questioning himself: How so many brilliant people are wrong? No one wants to be a laughing stock by foolishly fighting for a discovery, that has a flaw. Who wants to endure so much pain, costs and insults, only to be proven wrong?

The risks are so high to take lightly. There is a real chance, one could not succeed in exposing the error in his life. Kepler choose to not fight with establishment – he just published his discoveries, but not bothered to convince anyone. On the other hand, Galileo worked very hard to expose the error by picking battles with establishment and surfed the consequences.

You are right, scientists do research driven by intellectual curiosity to discover truth and a passion for knowledge. But what is his duty, if he end up on a disruptive discovery. For example, quotes of Galileo and his letter to Kepler gives us insights into his experiences: http://www.real-software-components.com/more_docs/Galileo-quotes.html. In his letter to Kepler in year 1610, Galileo complained that the philosophers (i.e. Scientists were referred to as philosophers) who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope: "My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth."

Best Regards,

Raju

Dr. Peter,

Nice to hear from you after a long break. You haven’t lost your sarcasm. Do You? What happened to your RG account for past year? Please kindly forgive me, if you not the same Peter T. Breuer, who kept insulting me.

The “Interchangeable Components” was invented for making muskets and demonstrated by making 10 muskets. Was it just limited to making 10 muskets, may be? Even the greatest invention “Interchangeable Components” was useless and struggled for few years, before inventing and perfecting enabling tools (e.g. Jigs, Dies, Castings, Mouldings or Forgings) and processes.

No scientific discipline can be real science, if the discipline relies on such baseless beliefs. As soon as any scientific discipline start relying on flawed belief, it would end up on a wrong path. I am sure at least 10 times more productive effort has gone into creating exiting CBSD paradox than compared to the productive effort invested on geocentric paradigm. I can’t find an example for this kind of mistake other than the geocentric paradigm. Other fields of computer science such as real-AI might also be infected with such beliefs.

I hope you can understand this simple logic: No scientific discipline (e.g. virology, bacteriology, biology or organic-chemistry) can ever be a real science, if it violates basic scientific principles, processes and rules. There is no exception to this rule. Computer science blatantly violated the principles, processes and rules for to end up in geocentric paradox of the software engineering. Now researchers are arguing that the retrograde motions and epicycles of CBSD are nature of software engineering and computer science.

The physical components for achieving CBD of physical product is in plain sight to investigate designing and building of products (e.g. by observing or talking to creators new one-of-a-kind working product prototype) and maintenance of products (e.g. by observing or talking to mechanics) for comprehending the reality, accumulating knowledge, to analyse and learn facts. There are books written by great engineering historians such as “The Evolution of Useful Things” and lot of great articles are available on great engineering inventions such as interchangeable components and Ford’s moving interchangeable parts and their effects.

I invested nearly 15 years of my passionate effort on this research, so you can’t even imagine what I know and what kind of proof I have. All I have been asking is just an opportunity – few days of time to demonstrate all the evidence for facts. Part of the question is, is it ethical to sue government funded research organizations to get an opportunity, I they refuse to investigate the proof. I will send you my case-brief in private message – may be you want to be a defendantJ.

Mankind still would be in the dark ages, if the error at the root of geocentric model is not yet exposed – when a scientific discipline ends up in a wrong path, it is easy to predict future – the scientific discipline can’t make any useful progress even for 500 years on such wrong path, if the error is not exposed. It is impossible to predict what kind of great discoveries lay ahead or around the next corner, when research is moving of right path. Please try to understand the difference between the right path for research (progresses indefinitely) & wrong path for research (end up in dead-end): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303756285_HowWhere_Real_Scientists_can_be_found_who_earned_PhD_due_to_real_merit_or_doing_real_research_in_Computer_Science_or_Software_Engineering  

I told you many times before, I stumbled onto such GUI technologies 15 years ago and our junior engineers created several hundreds of them 15 years ago, which were just a beginning. I choose to use GUI applications to demonstrate real CBSD, because it is the simplest.

The software researchers have been trying to invent technological solutions (e.g. by using mathematics) to solve scientific discoveries, which can only be addressed by scientific discoveries. Mathematical formulas and algorithms can only be useful to measure or quantify properties but can’t discover the facts such as nature or properties of virus, bacteria or components.

Almost everyone thought the heliocentric model was crazy, when they heard first.  You can’t empathise with pain and struggles needed to expose the error: http://www.real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology. Notice that it took 10 years for proposing 3rd law, after proposing first two laws. Experts like you though their first impression was better than decades of efforts gone into meticulous and passionate research went into it.

People like you expect proof in 15 minutes. No one can prove it 15 minutes, especially when one made up his mind. But I can train any senior software designer to positively ident features and functionality that can be implemented as real-software-components to achieve COP (Component Oriented Programming) in about couple of months.

You need patience and open mind. Most experts jumped to conclusion as soon as they read on 10% facts by relying on 90% prejudice. I believe, the moto of the FBI investigators is, investigation will go wherever the facts lead. In science and engineering we deal with facts that are certainly reproducible, conducive to apply sound logical reasoning to predict results and results can be demonstrated.

Any researcher or scientist must investigate the evidence with open mind in pursuit of Truth and investigation must go wherever the facts lead. But CBSD researchers pre-judged the Truth (i.e. true nature & essence of CBD and components) nearly 50 years ago and have been trying in fabricate facts to satisfy the pre-judged Truth for 50 years - They failed and it will be impossible for them to succeed.

Many be some pseudo sciences (e.g. political science or economic science) are not conducive to be real sciences, but computer science is conducive to be real since for past 25 years by using Object Oriented Programming (even if it were not conducive to be real science 45 years ago by using assembly language or FORTRAN). It was not possible to discover objective facts for such pseudo sciences to rely on (so not conducive to become a real science), but computers science is conducive to be real science – It is the duty of researchers to transform it into a real science.

Best Regards,

Raju

Article How/Where “Real Scientists” can be found, who earned Ph.D du...

Dr. Peter,

            It looks like you are different Peter Breuer. Kindly forgive me for my mistake. He was brilliant (so he used do think everyone who disagrees with him are fools) and flame me and others. His account seems to be removed. Kindly accept my apology for my mistake. I will answer your question in next message.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dr. Peter,

            Any comprehensive GUI technology must have three essential capabilities: (1) It must be simple to create a reusable class for any kind of GUI component, in addition to providing a rich set of (easy to use and highly configurable) pre-built reusable GUI components, (2) It must be simple to create a reusable class for any kind of container component to manage and organize (e.g. to navigate) the GUI components or other container components (that are passed as subcomponents), in addition to a set of pre-built reusable container components (that are easy to use and highly flexible), and (3) tools and mechanisms to make it very simple and highly flexible for creating communication code for allowing collaboration between the GUI components in the applications.

            The major desktop GUI technologies (e.g. from Microsoft Windows or Apple) can do this to very high degree. Our’s is a complete GUI platform for building complex web applications. Existing GUI technologies (e.g. from Microsoft Windows or Apple) can’t build real software component for COP (Component Oriented Programming). So the big difference is – our GUI technologies is capable of creating real software components to build complex hierarchies of replaceable components. Our GUI technologies can do each of the 3 far simpler, being built ground up to allow COP.

            Both Microsoft and Apple can quickly redesign their GUI technologies to enable real COP, if they need/want to do. I feel, they would do it, if and when the flawed beliefs are exposed.

You said:

I'm still not sure what you are trying to design, though :(. These are widgets, aren't they? Hence things that have an on-screen aspect to them, and which do things when clicked, pulled and pushed, punched and squeezed?

Are they intended to be used in modelling? I suppose so. Modelling of what, then? Perhaps they are to model mechanical components of real-world machines? (Just a guess - please forgive if that's way out).

            Dr. Peter, every GUI application is a collection of GUI components or Widgets, which are organized in various manner, for example to navigate. For example, using Microsoft GUI technologies to do all the things, in addition building Games, applications such as MS-Word and XL-spread sheet etc. – each requires a different set of GUI widgets and container components.

            Being a small start-up, we are targeting at Big Data and real-time widgets for IoT. Also now building container components to dynamically organize and allow navigation for devices such as smart-phones, tablets and Laptops etc. We feel, designers prefer a specific organization and specific navigation for each device. So server may use appropriate container component to serve a large set of GUI application for the device. We can target other areas such as Games or Modelling etc.

Games require certain king of GUI components and container components. Likewise, Modelling require certain king of GUI components and container components. It is not hard to build a reusable Java class for any kind of GUI component within 5 working days. Container components are usually much simpler.

            One thing we are targeting now is: digital twins (proposed by GE) for Internet of Really Big Things (or Industrial Internet). It is kind of real-time modelling, with digital control panel containing digital switchers, meter or gauges to control the Industrial equipment. I hope my reply answered your question.

            Think of a GUI application is like a story board. Each GUI-component or Widget is character to play a specific role (i.e. play or react when clicked, pulled and pushed, punched and squeezed). You need different kind of characters for different kind of stories. We have the technology to create any kind of characters to tell any kind of story – But we are very bad at telling any story or artistic design, so we only provide technology – we expect our customers to provide story, screen-play and direction.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Dear Dr. Peter,

            The terminology I use may be different from terminology used by other GUI systems. For example, Windows terminology use terms like Controls, while UNIX/Motif used Widgets. Container components are used to group varies GUI components (i.e. controls or widgets) such as TAB-components, Frames or Panels. Many of them are invisible, while few may have title or Tab to navigate between the GUI components.

            To achieve real CBD (Component Based Design) needs real software components – We need to discover nature and essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known large physical functional component. This knowledge would help designers to positively identify features and functionality that can be implemented as replaceable components. Please see the true essence of ideal CBD: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design.

            Reuse is not an essential property for components. For example, Camry V6 engine is custom designed for Camry, and not reusable in Corolla. Over 90% of core components are custom designed. That is the reason, I am asking the researchers to discover nature of components and CBD. I feel, we need to do similar research and discoveries, if we ever want to achieve real AI.

Best Regards,

Raju

Article What is true essence of Component Based Design?

Dear Dr. Peter,

            The CPU and DRAM are functional components, while the casing or plastic decorative components are non-functional components. In your web-site, the PNG images are non-functional components, while an interactive charts and GUI widgets are functional components. In automobile, the engine and gear box are core functional components, while the wind-shield, window glasses or door panels are non-functional components.

            In software, we mostly deal with functional components and only functional components are prone to spaghetti code (e.g. PNG or JIF images need just one line to include in web page, GUI application or word document). The objective of CBD is to implement over 95% of the features and functionality in replaceable components. I am just giving clues and you can easily see why I focused only on functional components. Almost every existing component ever created is a known component.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Dear Dr. Peter,

            I define essential properties of any specie are the properties uniquely and universally shared by every known specimen belong to specie. For example, having 8 protons at the nucleus is the essential property of oxygen atom. That is, no atom can be oxygen atom, if it doesn’t have 8 protons is the at the nucleus. This is the simplest example, I can find. May be it is not so simple to list essential properties for plants or bacteria. But mankind has this knowledge to positively identify each of them 99% of times.

We need to discover this kind of essential properties to positively identify features and functionality that can be implemented as replaceable components (in case of non-GUI-components – It is not a trivial task – But can be done with few months of practice and hands on experience – I am not saying, one can achieve 95% modularity within months – But I feel, it is possible for talented software architects with couple of years of experience). I can comfortably achieve over 50% modularity in non-GUI applications – Implementing over 50% of the code in replaceable components. I feel, almost anyone can achieve 50% modularity with few months of experience.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Raju, your mentioning about Galileo is absolutely right. On another take, all the criticisms against H. Arendt's The Banality of Evil clearly showed that those critics did no read Arendt's book at all. Usually that is the case.

Doubt is a very normal process - in thinking. However, besides doubt there is hybrid - this love for wisdom, this devotion to one'w own work that becomes crucial about come to terms wit the discoveries.

The courage thinkers and discoverers find within themselves is not necessarily rational, but a brave impulse for life itself, if I may say so.

Dear Dr. Maldonado,

            Thank you for moral support and encouragement. Many experts unfortunately lock for comfort (or elusion) of endorsement of authority, rather than their own intellect and reasoning.

            This can be and often exploited by clever press/journalists and public relations experts. They narrate a story dotted with support and endorsements of so called leading authorities (but in reality they are crony experts posing as leading authorities). The so called leading authorities create an elusion of authority. Isn’t it intellectual bankruptcy if researchers rather rely on celebrity endorsements over their intellect and reasoning?

            I just read the wiki page on "Banality of Evil" and it presented an interesting perspective. Every system brain washes its citizens. It is unbelievable, how could North Korean people brainwashed to believe most evil man alive today as God like leader. Even USSR did that until 1980s. Almost every country does that. Even in the USA people rather believe their politicians than their fair reasoning. Even press is slightly biased. I used to believe all the propaganda, but later I learned real facts that exposed the bias. Now I take the news with bit of a salt. My time to bed in India and I will read more about "Banality of Evil".

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            The argument I want to make to computer scientists is: Even the real sciences can no longer be real sciences, if they start violating basic scientific principles and processes by relying on unproven beliefs. The real sciences are staying as real sciences because they are not only following the basic scientific principles and processes strictly but also they are conducive to strictly follow scientific principles and processes.

P.S: Pseudo sciences such as political sciences or economic sciences are not conducive to strictly follow scientific principles and processes, so they have no choice but rely on un-provable beliefs (I.e. each belief can’t be proved wrong and/or can’t be proved that it is a fact) -Therefore such sciences are pseudo sciences.

            I know for fact and can prove that (requesting an opportunity to prove) that, today computers science disciplines (e.g. CBSD and AI) are conducive to strictly follow scientific principles and processes (that could lead to revolutionary advancements). But software researchers violated the basic scientific principles and processes, so ended up in geocentric paradox of the software engineering.

            Let me answer your question about terminology. I view this as two layers (1) Scientific knowledge or facts about the reality, which about the nature and properties of components and aspects of CBD, and (2) using this knowledge to create useful tings. The second is kind of kind of subjective. Some thing I feel useful may not be so useful to you. Also something useful in one context may be less useful in another context. So read this in this context:

            I felt, optimal size components are more useful. I feel, around 1000 lines to 2000 lines of code is optimal size. Please look at a sample CBD application: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html . In this, each replaceable component would have an autonomous code base, so that it can be redesigned and tested individually – free from spaghetti code.

            I feel, an average new engineer should be able to understand the code for a RCC within few days to add features or change functionality to satisfy evolving needs. I feel, no one want to build components that are less than 200 or 300 lines of code to clutter with so many components. Also smaller components likely be less cohesive needing proportionally more couplings. These are all subjective and also based on application domain or context.

            May be I should have used better term than “functional”, but what I mean is led-aced Battery is a functional component, because it has ingredients that generate 12VDC power. Also container components can be just under 20 lines – For example, the LandMark component uses 3 different sub-components.

            Any new paradigm needs to pick terms from our language and their meanings are incommensurable across paradigms. That is the reason, it needs few days training – to get familiar with terminology. Also great engineering designers or architects have talent and instinct to know what is the optimal size for a domain and the talent pool building each of the components.

            Great scientists have a talent to see the facts that is closest to absolute reality. Great engineering inventers have the talent to see most useful thing for largest users. Both are talents. You need to see my statements in this context. I don’t know how close my facts are to reality. Also I don’t know how useful my optimal size judgment.

You need to make your own judgment based on your perception of reality by analyzing all the facts. Until I design few multimillion dollar applications, I don’t know how good my judgments are. My passionate pursuit past decade is only to get my scientific facts closest to absolute Truth – So my engineering judgments are not yet tested - It is my subjective feeling that optimal size is 1500 (+/-500) lines of code.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Dear Dr. Peter,

            I read the link. I understand the feeling. What really amazing is, we have so many brilliant people in computer science, who rather rely on comfort or illusion of authority, over their own reasoning and intellect. More people take my discoveries seriously, if it is endorsed by paid celebrity – a big movie star (over using their own reasoning and intellect).

            I attended many conference, where though leaders and people in passion of influence give endless public speeches about need for original work/ideas and independent thinking. But they treat original ideas that contradict their prejudice or beliefs are treated as scammers or cheating.

            They are really brilliant and outstanding in solving problems using existing technologies. They are masters in learning and using the existing technologies. Great orators and outstanding at articulating their complex vision, ideas or technologies. I expected over 90% of the experts are like that. I could not even find even a single real scientist, in many years of my search and hundreds of experts I contacted.

            No one can guarantee a book would become financial successful. No one can guarantee a software product (or new invention) become successful in the market place. But anyone can guarantee a scientific Truth and fact always becomes successful and only possible way to go forward.

            The path of progress of any scientific disciplines is dotted with accurate scientific discoveries (i.e. of facts and truths). If any one of the facts or truths are flawed, the research effort is pushed into wrong path and end up in disaster. A flawed belief or fact always leads to a disaster and no other way to overcome the disaster (i.e. crisis) even in 1000 years without exposing the flawed beliefs.

            The Geocentric paradigm was stuck in the crisis for over 1000 years. Computer science and software engineering stuck in crisis for about 30 years. They are denying my right to see real AI in my life time. I am extremely curious how neurons and neural networks work?

            I am also curious, what kind of new applications brilliant and creative people invent, if we can address 10 times more problems using real CBSD than possible today. Also ability to dynamically fetch and assemble components at near real-time would inventor create new kind of software applications or products, which are very hard to even imagine today. It is frustrating to endure loosing battles due to pure negligence and arrogance.

            Thank you for sharing the link. These things give hope to continue battles. Would you be interested in working with me to write a paper or essay for OnWard in SPLASH-2017 conference? I don’t think, our paper has a chance to be accepted in regular track. OnWard is open to more speculative papers or essays. Our discoveries are speculative, but they pensive them to be speculative. What else we can do?

Even the greatest scientist Newton could not have made any useful contribution, if he were born 150 years earlier (or in Heliocentric model were proposed 150 years late). These brilliant minds not only wasted their efforts on geocentric model of software engineering but condemning the future efforts of young brilliant researchers. What a monumental waste. I feel, such people must be prosecuted and punished for gross negligence.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            You are right. Reviewers of software papers are obsessed with references. Any reference I give from the exiting paradox end proving my argument wrong. How was it possible to use epicycles from geocentric model to prove Heliocentric model?

            You are right :-( I am extremely poor linguist. I used to spend 50% time on English to get passing grades. But we software engineers are extremely lucky. Many of us making many times more money than we deserve :-). Thanks to Internet Boom. Hence we have lot of egos and feel we are the smartest people in the world.

            I know many very good engineers (e.g. Electrical and Mechanical) form top Universities having many years of experience, when became unemployed took few months training in SAP or Oracle and now making more money than they did before.

            I got lucky. I did under graduation in EE (Electrical Engineering). I wanted to do Masters in EE. But I god very low TOFEL score and get MS in computer science at Ohio University. I joined in MSCS in mid 1980s hoping to change to EE after couple of quarters. But after two quarters I likes CS and continued in CS (also it was hard to get tuition weaver in EE). So I got Lucky.

            Kindly let me know what you think of this thesis:  What is a Real Science? What is not a Real (or Pseudo) Science? How Computer Science can be transformed from Pseudo Science to real Science today?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Thesis What is a Real Science? What is not a Real (or Pseudo) Scien...

Dr. Peter,

            After writing that theses on my home, I was so happy to gain insights in to “What is real science?”. I read Sir Karl Popper. I don’t thing, he tried to answer that question.

You said:

But then again, plenty of people have written on that. And then you're not talking about computer science AT ALL, but software engineering.

            No I am not talking about software engineering. Any engineering needs theoretical foundation (i.e. scientific facts and knowledge). I want computer science to provide the theoretical foundation (i.e. scientific facts and knowledge).

            Many experts question, if software engineering is real engineering. Software engineering can also be transformed in to real engineering, if we provide sound theoretical foundation (i.e. scientific facts and knowledge) for disciplines such as CBSD or AI.

            No one asks, if sciences such as sub-fields of microbiology such as virology, mycology, parasitology, and bacteriology are real sciences? Why? Answer is simple: Every one expects that (a) researchers know the basic scientific principles and processes, and (b) every one expects researchers to strictly follow the basic scientific principles and processes.

            If there is a debate on weather computer science is a real science, then it can’t be a real science. This question implies computer is not following the basic scientific principles and processes – Hence it can’t be real science.

            Most real scientists subconsciously know the essential requirements for real scientific discipline. If we can describe tacit or subconscious knowledge (i.e. essential requirements for real scientific discipline) can be used to positively determine, weather a scientific discipline is a real science.

            If it not a real science, can it be transformed into real science by make it satisfy all the essential requirements for real scientific disciplines. I hope, you can understand my logic. I am so happy that, I gained new insights into philosophy of science.

            Dr. Peter, you are trying to solve a big puzzle and you gather so many pieces and struggling to put all together. When you put many of them together, you know when you are correct (since most of the pieces are fitting very well and you can see most of the picture to recognize what is painted in the picture. I can’t explain all the pieces, but I know that I am on the right track and very close to truth.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            The main difference between real science and pseudo science is: The real sciences can strictly follow scientific principles and processes, for example, by relying on scientific knowledge comprising of demonstrable and repeatable scientific facts; but the pseudo sciences unable to rely on such demonstrable and repeatable scientific facts.

            Major disciplines in computer science such as CBSD and AI are not relying on demonstrable and repeatable scientific facts – This is the fact. In a real science, each and every sub-discipline strictly follows scientific principles and processes.

            Galileo was the last person, who struggle to transform basic sciences into real sciences. He put it eloquently in his quote: “Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so.”. In other words, rely on objective measurements if it can be measured. If it can’t be measured (i.e. subjective), make it objective measurable fact.

            Galileo left us profound insights into his struggles through his insightful quotes. Sir Karl Popper never endured such struggles, but Galileo did. Some of the quotes, I love: http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/Galileo-quotes.html. More you experience such struggles, the more you appreciate them.

            The above just briefly mentions some of the pieces of the puzzle. Our perception of reality is formed by putting many such pieces, where each piece would start looking blurry in the beginning and becomes clearer and clearer as we start analyzing deeper and deeper.

            The above facts and facts presented in first page of my paper are anchor points for gestalt shift – please refer to most popular picture for gestalt shift. If you see it (i.e. one of the anchor points) as a nose, you will see an old lady.  If you see it (i.e. one of the anchor points) as left-side of a jaw, you will see a young lady.

            Please keep in mind: Mankind assumed that the Earth is at the center – It resulted in a perception of reality depicted in FIG-1. Existing heliocentric paradigm by relying on “the Sun is at center” illustrated in FIG-4. You have completely two different perceptions of realities: http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html

            Likewise, the CBSD objective since 1960s has been to build software products as hardware designers design and build computers by assembling COTS (Commercially Off the Shelf) components from 3rd party component vendors. – It resulted in geocentric paradox for the software.

            My objective for CBSD has been since year 2003 was to achieve CBD-structurehttp://real-software-components.com/CBD/CBD-structure.html  – Which is, Implementing 95% of the features and functionality as hierarchy of replaceable components - It resulted in Heliocentric paradigm for the software (I can prove that the objective of CBD of physical products is to achieve hierarchy of replaceable components – hence it is Heliocentric model). Please understand the reality of CBD: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/main-differences.html

            The FIG-1 is reality – If the Earth is at the center. The FIG-4 is reality, if Sun is the center. You need to discover, which one is real scientific fact – the Anchor point to paint the picture of reality. Likewise, you need to discover which one is reality and true essence of real CBD of physical products. Let me conclude this with couple of quotes from Galileo: “Where the senses fail us, reason must step in.”

“You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him discover it in himself.”

 It is up to one to pick the anchor point to start painting reality - I can only provide anchor points and assistance to help him discover it by himself.”

Best Regards,

Raju

Thesis What is a Real Science? What is not a Real (or Pseudo) Scien...

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Let me clarify. I agree with you that few parts (or fields) of software technology are rooted in sound theoretical foundation. Hence they are working perfectly fine. Any real science needs each and every part (or fields) must be rooted in sound theoretical foundation (i.e. scientific knowledge of demonstrable and repeatable facts).

All I am saying is few parts (or fields) of software technology (e.g. CBSD and AI) are NOT rooted in sound theoretical foundation (i.e. scientific knowledge of demonstrable and repeatable facts). Hence they are not working and are in disarray or crisis – No progress is possible until they are put on right path.

You are saying glass is half-full. I am saying glass is half empty. Both of us are right. But I am saying that, in any real science each and every field must be rooted in (i.e. scientific knowledge of demonstrable and repeatable facts).

All I am saying is, we can also transform computer science into real science by relying each and every field (e.g. CBSD) in (i.e. scientific knowledge of demonstrable and repeatable facts).

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            You said:

"Executive summary ... look around and see if you can find formal methods works on identifying, composing, designing, refining in and about component based design for GUIs in an object-oriented context."

(I got the impression some of those words were not understood!)

            May be we are looking this in different perspectives. I believe, I understood what you said. To do that, I feel, we need the ability to build GUI components, which are real software components – That can be plugged-in by writing 3 lines of code and un-plugged by removing the 3 lines. See a real CBD application: http://www.real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html and an example of component hierarchy: http://www.pioneer-soft.com/#/realairtraffic   

            The City_ATC is implemented as RCC & City_ER is implemented as RCC. The TAB component is an Object that can be passed as sub-component to another container component and so on.

            Today no other GUI technology is capable of doing that. You can’t create a RCC for such replaceable components. So I invented and created a GUI technology that is capable of creating real software components. You need real software components for real CBSD.

            Even the greatest invention “Interchangeable Components” is useless, if you can’t make the interchangeable components, for example, without the inventions of tools (e.g. jigs, dies, castings, forgings or mouldings) to make the “Interchangeable Components”

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            I have 12 years of experience in developing GUI applications (as a software engineer) even before year 2000 – It is the geocentric paradigm of the software engineering. You are asking me to rely on retrograde motions and epicycles of software engineering to prove heliocentric model of the software engineering. It can’t be done.

            You can’t see the beautiful young girl, as long as you insist that her left jaw is a nose of an old lady (i.e. referring to most popular gestalt-shift image). You have to discard all your prejudice and preconceived notions – This is called paradigm shift. This is the only way, if you want to put scientific progress on right path. Even Newton and Einstein can’t make any useful discoveries in geocentric paradigm, because there is nothing useful to discover existed in the geocentric paradigm.

            It requires at least few full days and up to 2 weeks to provide irrefutable proof. If I can’t get normal way, I will have to raise venture funds to hire a team of experts to provide proof and take a legal action against government funded research agencies, who are responsible to help this kind of discoveries. The top question is it moral or ethical?

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            I am not hiding anything and I am not avoiding any thing deliberately. I answered that question. What is the CBD structure of physical products? The CBD-structure is shown in FIG-2 at: http://www.real-software-components.com/CBD/CBD-structure.html

It is inverted tree. The software equivalent is explained in this page The GUI components are nodes. Please see figure-4 at: http://www.real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html.

Dr. Peter, the nature of any disruptive discoveries (or paradigm) is to contradict deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. If experts feel, it is insulting their intelligence – They need to understand, that is what any disruptive discovery supposed to do – otherwise it is not a disruptive discovery.

If an application has 100 components. In real CBD, each of the components can be built and tested individually (free from spaghetti code). Since each component needs only 3 lines of code to assemble, it must not take more than half-a-day to assemble the software product. Any component can be replaced by replacing its 3 lines of code.

How long, it would take to plug in each of the replaceable components. Please revisit the above two figures. The design process is out line at: http://www.real-software-components.com/CBD/CBD-process.html. Don’t you already know the CBD structure and CBD process of physical products?

Each large component (or container component) is created by assembling subcomponents, where each subcomponent in-turn can be container component having its own subcomponents, and so on. The large component in turn can be used to build even larger component, and so on. Isn’t it the structure of CBD products?

In case of real-CBSD, no component must need more than 3 lines of code to plug-in, so that it can be unplugged by removing the 3 lines or replaced by changing the 3 lines. Communication between components is handled by tools such as FIG-3 at: http://www.real-software-components.com/CBD/Sample_SoA_CASE_tool.html

Best Regards,

Raju

Dr. Peter,

            If you are using a java class for a GUI component – a line chart, you may think of it a leaf. But When we are building the chart, it is a container component. We use many subcomponents such as Tooltip, Legend, X-Axis and Y-axis in addition to the line in chart area.

            Also we have a dozen are more Too-tips to select, so we select appropriate one based on kind of chart or user configuration. Also we have a dozen or more X-Axis’s to select from. If the data is time-line, we select from time-line sub-set of X-axis’s. Then it selects appropriate X-Axis based on time duration (e.g. by subtracting low point from High Point). Also have many Legends and Y-Axis.

            We have large set of small-grained GUI components. They can be used quickly to build larger GUI components. The title for the chart can be any replaceable component. So one can even pass object for City_GIS, if you want – This is the power and flexibility of our GUI technology.

            Please keep in mind GUI components are reusable components, but not replaceable components (i.e. real-software-components). To avoid confusion between the terminology, I am using replaceable component to refer to real-software-components.

            Dr. Peter, it is not acyclic. Each GUI component can have just one and only one parent (or container component). No subcomponent can never be the parent of any of its ancestors. It is a linier tree. In case of CBD for physical products, the structure of components is a linier tree.

I am not talking about the communication links or dependencies, which may be acyclic. - It is different from the physical structure of component hierarchy. Dependencies could have loops – For example, battery starts engine. Engine runs alternator – Alternator charges the Battery. 

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Hello Raju :)

nice discussion. As you know I do understand very little about computer sciences. However scientific theory is honestly something I love.

You came up with a differentation between 'real science' and 'pseudo science'. I wouldn't call it pseudo sciences. I rather tend to differentiate between 'realism' and 'anti-realism' (as you maybe know if you were following my answers in certain discussions). I furthermore make a destinction than between three layers:

- world view or position (absolute vs. relative)

- conception (subjective vs. objective)

- adaptability (constructed vs. real)

So whatever you call pseudo sciences is at least a combination in this form:

Truth is seen as something relative. Indeed it is something which is said to be highly dependend from the onlooker. So partly subjective opinion gets excepted if it is only well presented enough with some power to persuade others. Adaptability is reffering to the process of creating knowledge either explaining events/results or anticipating certain outcomes. Especially when it comes to constructing reality one could say "All ways lead to rome" while realism is more intersted in finding 'the best way'.

So 'pseudo science' is anti realism saying:

- All things are equally good which lead to a desired outcome. So our things are by far the best. Because good is what we define as good.

- Persuation and in the end even lying is alright if it helps to reach an aim. Our aim is to have control and power.

- Truth is anyway relative and dependend from the onlooker. This makes our point of view that lying is alright even more true.

I think Peter brought in a few pretty good points what he thinks is needed in order to perform a better argumentation pointing to the layer of adaptability. You should at least try to listen what he got to say without feeling emotionaly overwhealmed by his 'sarcasm'. His suggestions do sound at least reasonable. Something to consider.

Dear Carmen,

            Thank you. I understand your point of view. Also I already tried some of the Dr. Peters suggestion, but didn’t work. Some of them I can’t try – He wants me to become the best English linguist and orator – I wanted to, but I can’t :-(

            Carmen, in science you need to have "general" absolute truths as pivot points to understand the reality and get closer and closer to the measurable or quantify particular absolute Truth. For example, there is a force attraction between any two bodies having mass is accepted as an absolute Truth.

            This lead to two more absolute truths related to the universal gravity: The force attraction increases, if the mass of any body increases. The force attraction decreases, if the distance between the tow bodies increase.

            Before trying the force, such absolute truths must be used as pivots to pains reality. If such “general” absolute truths are flawed, our scientific research goes in to wrong path and end up in a crisis. For example, mankind’s belief that “the Earth is static” pushed scientific research into a wrong path.

Newton’s try to quantify the force attraction – Which taken our knowledge very close to absolute Truth (that is extremely accurate for all practical purposes). Einstein’s general relativity has taken our knowledge even further closer to the absolute Truth. Now researchers have been using theories such as String theory to take our knowledge even further closer to the absolute Truth.

I feel – Scientific research is nothing but this kind of pursuit of absolute Truth. – This is my understanding of scientific research. You can do this in real sciences. Pseudo sciences – you can’t do that. I can’t find a better term, so I am using the term Pseudo sciences – You may suggest a better term.

In Pseudo sciences you can’t find such “general” absolute truths pivot your scientific research, for example, "Measure what is measurable (i.e. objective), and make measurable what is not so (i.e. subjective)." – Galileo.

I am sure this is the best approach for computer science, especially for CBSD and AI. May be there are other approaches are better for other circumstances and other fields. I hope, I explained my point of view. I try to pivot my research on general absolute truths. Then try to quantify and measure the specific to get closer and closer to particulate absolute Truth.

            My humble opinion mathematics is a great tool and language of science, but can’t describe certain things such as essential properties of physical functional components or essential aspects of phenomena such as CBD.  Can we use mathematical equations to describe essential properties of virus, bacteria, animals or plants (e.g. to positively identify each kind and differentiate them for other kinds)?

            Carmen, this kind of disruptive discoveries can’t be proved. I can’t convince researchers that I am right. My objective is to convince real scientists to investigate the Truth and provide help. Real scientists know that it is their sacred duty to investigate Truth. I am sure they discover the Truth on their own.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            The essential aspect and essence of ideal CBD is easy to define: Encapsulating 95% of the features and functionality in replaceable components for achieving CBD-structure (i.e. “Hierarchy of Replaceable Components”), for example, by using CBD process.

            I defined essential property of components is “Self-Contained” and replicability, where replicability implies it can be un-plugged (or disassembled) and re-plugged-in (re-assembled).

            I leveraged a pivotal Truth to discover the property “Self-Contained”: Each and every physical being (including large functional physical components) must have one and only accurate description (i.e. a set of properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component).

Also we know another fact about the CBD: Neither complexity nor one-of-a-kind nature of physical product (e.g. experimental spacecraft or next-generation jet-fighters) can’t prevent designers to partitioned features and functionality in to components to achieve CBD-structure. Not even a single software product is created as CBD-structure. Not even 20% of large software products is implemented as replaceable components - Why is such a contrast?

I believed at least 50% functionality and features of non-GUI-applications can be implemented as replaceable components - Any one want to learn this must put such goals and keep trying - I can only help, if any one is determined to learn or want to see proof.

I have to create hundreds of replaceable components to gain experience in positively identifying features and functionality that can be implemented as components. This kind of tacit knowledge can be learned by reading books. Only way one can learn is by practice and examining examples. I can train experts only by showing real examples and hands on experience. My patents (each is 200 to 400 pages) clearly disclosed the process and examples. If anyone want to learn, only way is practice. If it is so simple, I don’t have to struggle for so many years. Many people would have discovered on their own. We would not have in this mess.

The GUI components are ideal examples to illustrate the property “Self-Contained”, because we can visualize them – they are more concreate. Once sufficient insights are gained, it can be extended to non-GUI self-contained components. Non-GUI components are extremely hard to analyse or even visualize. Just like OOA and OOD, talented guys can do better partitioning. Without the GUI technologies that can create real-software-components, I am sure it is impossible to acquire tacit knowledge and experience to discover “self-contained”.

Dr. Peter, no one wants to fail. I don’t want to fail. I have been trying my best. If one’s best is not good enough, what else any one can do. Just keep trying and hope he would become better and eventually become successful. That is what I am doing. I want to expose the flawed beliefs at the root of CBSD at any cost.

I was very quiet and humble person – you can ask any of my friends or anyone worked with me or known me for my whole life. But have been enduring insults and snubbing – who wants to endure that – if it is possible to avoid? It is easy to judge or say. No one can know this without experiencing this first hand. I have been enduring all this because my determination and desire to put software research on right path. If I fail, the flawed beliefs will never be exposed at least for several decades.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dr. Peter,

            What time zone you are living? Are you in Europe or in the USA? You post at odd times.

            What I meant is: What is the ideal CBD (Component Based Design)? I thing, it is to partitioning the product into plug-in components of optimal size. The components should be plugged-in quickly to assemble the product. Optimal size means not too complex and not too simple – An average new engineer must be able to understand the design and code within few days.

            Each component must have ideal “service access”, so that the component can be easily un-plugged to service it. In physical products, servicing means repairing or replacing with a new component. In software, servicing means (occasionally replacing with a better component but) mostly redesigning it and testing it (individually outside free from spaghetti code) to satisfy changing needs or adding more features.

            We need to understand what is an ideal CBD, so that, we can invent necessary tools and processes to achieve the ideal CBD for software. We know that over 95% of the features and functionality of the physical products are implemented in components. For example, in case of physical products, many components are not optimal size – but I feel it is possible for software.  Likewise, in case of physical products, many components can be assembled but can’t be plugged in like a hard-drive or DRAM-strips. But I am sure, it is possible to plug-in software replaceable components by writing just 3 lines of code, and can be un-plugged by removing the 3 lines.

            This is what I need to explain. I hope you can understand this. Let me know, if you have any questions. How do you explain this? May be we should take this to private massages.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Thank you for the feedback and guidelines. I need to work on that. The way I am doing might not work or working very slowly. I need to find new plan or strategy. Our engineers are building very interesting components. May be we can build interesting applications for customers that can attract attention of software community.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            I feel, I need to pursue both tracks – Because each track is a leg. The industrial track provides empirical evidence – The software application created as “Hierarchy Of Replaceable Components” – That is, real CBSD. If we get a chance to build large compelling applications that gets industry attention, providing theoretical foundation lends credibility that it can be repeated.

            We don’t know where I can get break. May be I can eventually find real scientist in our computer science. May be I get to build a killer web application for our customer, every one wants to build but can’t build without our real-software-components. Scientific discoveries and empirical evidence are two legs - One can’t go far without two legs.

            Today software scientists are like Archaeologists or Paleontologists need to work on a small faction of pieces (of evidence) to solve a large puzzle (having numerous pieces of evidence). There is lot of theories each backed by only few unreliable facts and evidence. On the other hand, I stumbled on to and created demonstrable and repeatable facts and evidence.

            Our engineers are creating demonstrable and repeatable facts every week. This is kind of like, going back in time and observing the real things. Instead of investigating our demonstrable and repeatable facts, Computer Scientists foolishly demanding theoretical proof, where our theories must not contradict the existing unproven but widely accepted theories (many of them are flawed – In light of our demonstrable and repeatable facts and evidence - Software researchers refusing to see such hard evidence).

       For example, 500 years ago scientists refuse to see Hard evidence such has Galileo moons, where the hard evidence contradict their beliefs - If the Earth is not static, why the Moon is not left behind (how can it follow the Earth moving at 20 miles/sec). Likewise, Software Researchers are refusing to see hard evidence and facts that contradict their soft unproven theories, which are widely accepted (but I have hard evidence to prove that they are flawed).

          The scientific theories and concepts that are derived by sound rational logic and reasoning are only soft facts/evidence. Such soft facts/evidence must be backed by hard evidence such as demonstrable and repeatable facts or proposing experiment and accurately predicting unknown outcome of proposed experiment. Discovery of Neptune to explain anomaly or perturbation in Uranus orbit is a hard evidence for Newtonian gravitational theory. How can I expose countless flawed epicycles of existing CBSD, if researchers refuse to see all the hard evidences in entirety?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Thank you for the reference. Bu it looks like the time left is very short and I have few pre-scheduled work and travel. But I will try. I don’t know what to put, because there is so much information. It is very hard to get a gestalt shift by describing each part at a time, since gestalt shift needs looking at the picture in its entirety. In a paper like this, I can only describe one piece at a time and only few pieces. What do you think about the following title and abstract?

Best Regards,

Raju

Title:

What is he true nature and properties of the Components? What is the nature and True Essence of the CBD (Component Based Design)?

Abstract:

It is essential to answer the above questions. Is it possible to invent cures for infections, if scientists blindly define nature and properties of versus and bacteria (without giving any consideration to reality or facts)? If it is wrong to blindly define nature and properties of versus or bacteria, why is it not wrong to blindly define nature and properties of components or CBD (without any basis in reality/fact)? Is it hard to understand this simple logic: Is it possible to invent fibre optic networks, if researchers blindly define nature and properties of light (without any basis in reality/fact)? Is it possible to invent electronic chips (Integrated Circuits), if researchers blindly define nature and properties of electrons (without any basis in reality/fact)? How can software researchers invent real-software-components for real CBD if researchers blindly define nature and properties of components and CBD, not only without any basis in reality/fact but also in clear contradiction to the reality and facts we all know about physical components and CBD (Component Based Design) of physical products?

Introduction:

Mankind erroneously concluded more than 2000 years ago that “the Earth is static (at the centre)” is a self-evident fact. No one questioned its validity for over 1500 years. It was the most educated and best possible assumption based on then best available knowledge, observations and experiences. It was impossible to validate (i.e. prove or disprove) the belief (“the Earth is static”) using primitive technology, tools and knowledge exited 2000 years ago. Just because no one questioned or expressed any doubts about its validity for 1500 years can’t make it a scientific Truth.

They violated basic scientific principles and processes by not documenting the assumption (e.g. for future generations to validate). They really didn’t violate any known scientific principles and processes knowingly, because these scientific principles and processes were formulated only during and after the scientific revolution resulted when the error at the root of geocentric paradigm was exposed. The principles and processes are now well established and widely accepted. It is essential for any real science to strictly follow the basic scientific principles and processes. Hence it is a blatant violation in 20th century to not documenting unproven beliefs and relying on such unproven beliefs (by concluding them to be self-evident facts).

Likewise, software researchers assumed about 50 years ago that software is different and/or unique. So concluded that it is not possible to invent real software components for achieving real CBD. That may be true in light of primitive programming tools, knowledge and technologies (e.g. FORTRAN or Assembly Languages) 30 or 40 years ago, but such beliefs true even today? Software tools, technologies and knowledge progressed substantially for past 50 years. In fact, software engineering advanced more than sufficiently to validate the beliefs more than 25 years ago.

The hardest part for achieving real CBD is discovering the nature and essential properties of components by gaining sufficient knowledge and hands on experience and insights to positively identify each set of features and functionality (e.g. having high degree of synergy) that can be implemented in each on the replaceable components for the application. In case of non-GUI applications, it may take anywhere between few weeks to couple of months training and practice to acquire this kind of knowledge and expertise for the software designers. It is not very hard compared to earlier unsuccessful models such as UML (Unified Modelling Language) or OOA/OOD.

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Thank you for clarification. I will review them. I attended few conferences. Most of them are kind of like good old boys’ club – You rub my back and I rub you back type. Even few VC or Investors circles are like that, but not that bad -because they invest their own funds and/or greed (in its best from) makes a big difference. That is the reason I filed for patents. I need to provide minimum security for their risk, if I feel I have no other option.

Did you read my Introduction part (I added may be at the same time of your post)? What time zone you live? I was under the impression that you are in Atlanta.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            What I realized must be shocking to any real scientist. I got to share this: What is the only difference between the hard sciences and the soft sciences? The hard sciences deal with objective facts and reality such as nature and properties of physical things or physical phenomena. The soft sciences deal with subjective things and trying hard to see, if they can find a way to measure and/or quantify the subjective things, for example to improve our ability to predict the subjective nature or phenomena.

              'Measure what can be measured and make measurable what cannot be measured.' … Galileo Galilee

              The hard sciences deal with objective things and reality that are measurable, repeatable, demonstrable and predictable. The hard sciences deal with immutable physical reality or facts or physical phenomena (i.e. only our perception of reality or facts may change or evolve, but fact and reality never changes).

           The soft sciences deal with subjective things and uncertainties of reality or phenomena (e.g. influences of religions, culture, charismatic leaders, technological progress and human instincts such as greed, fear, love, hate, or perceptions etc., on economics, societies, regions or politics etc.), which are hard to measure, predict or demonstrate. But goal is to employ proven scientific methods, principles and processes to acquire knowledge such as to gain insights and understanding, for example, improving the probability of predictions or improving the approximation of measurements.

              The fact is: The soft sciences call themselves sciences, because their goal is to employ proven scientific principles and processes to gain knowledge and insights about the subjective things and unpredictable phenomena or reality (e.g. complex influences of religions, cultures and human instincts such as greed, fear, love, hate, or perceptions etc., on economics, societies, regions or politics etc.). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

              One thing in common for hard sciences and soft sciences is: Both are trying to gain insights and knowledge of nature of things and reality by employing proven basic scientific principles and processes. The difference is hard sciences deal with objective things and phenomena, while soft sciences have to deal with subjective things and uncertainties of reality or unpredictable phenomena (e.g. complex influences and interactions of religion, culture and instincts such as greed, fear, love, hate, or perceptions etc., on economics, societies, regions or politics etc.).

                On the other hand, computer science not only ignored reality and facts but also blatantly violated basic scientific principles and processes when dealing with quintessential objective things such as nature and properties of components for CBD or neurons for AI. Isn’t it insult to soft sciences, if any one insists that computer science is a soft science, because soft sciences neither ignore reality and facts nor blatantly violate basic scientific principles and processes.

              The nature and properties of the physical components essential for achieving real CBD of physical products is immutable hence can be and must be discovered. Blindly defining the nature and properties for software components and CBSD is a monumental mistake by ignore such immutable reality and facts such as the essential properties of the components for achieving real CBD.

               Isn't it shocking for any real scientist? - This error in the attached PDF already cost trillions by delaying technological progress in software engineering and AI for decades!

             P.S: Please keep in mind that it is unfair to compare the maturity and elegance of work done by tens of thousands of brilliant and highly mature researchers for 50 years on the geocentric paradox of the software engineering with few years work of just one armature accidental researcher’s effort on Heliocentric model of the software engineering, especially in the perception of an expert deeply indoctrinated for decades into the geocentric paradigm of the software.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dr. Peter,

            The point is scientists can’t blindly define nature and properties of components and CBD (Component Based Design) – It is a violation of scientific processes and principles. Only places nature and properties are defined without any basic in reality or facts are in science fiction books and movies. Even soft sciences don’t make up beliefs out of thin air without any basic in subjective reality or subjective facts. Even those things can be falsified, when there is enough evidence and proof. Even soft sciences must put their best effort to follow basic principles and processes.

            Living things like viruses and bacteria evolve, so their descriptions would change.  But the nature and properties of existing viruses and bacteria is immutable (i.e. only our perception of reality or facts may change or evolve, but fact and reality never changes – hence nature and properties are immutable).

            Likewise the nature and properties of existing physical functional components are immutable facts, although my patents only reflect my perception of reality and I will file more patents, if or as my perception evolves). Likewise, any one including you can file patents if you discover a perception that is more useful.

            What do you think the greatest discovery of Copernicus? It is not “the Sun is at the center” but exposing the flawed belief “the Earth is static”. The biggest battles were fought to prove that “the Earth is not static”. Don’t forget the famous defiant murmurs of Galileo Galilee “And yet it moves”.  Hence it is known as Copernican revolution, even though biggest measurable contributions are made by Kepler, Galileo and Newton etc. For example, Kepler’s laws are so perfect and elegant – Even Einstein was amazed how Kepler did that in 16th century.

            Please see the Tychonic system’s discussion of “stellar parallax” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychonic_system - Isn’t amazingly fascinating reasoning and logic? Those are the characteristics of real scientists – observing the reality and struggling to make sense of it and trying to provide rational explanation. Surprisingly philosophers and researchers even in the 16th century exhibited 10 times more intellectual capabilities, vigor and scientific reasoning, than 21st century pseudo software scientists and researchers. Computer science would transform into a real science in no time, if computer science has few scientists having one-tenth intellectual capabilities, vigor, curiosity or scientific reasoning.

               The contribution of Copernicus is exposing the flawed belief, which put the scientific research on right tracks and opened up the vast un-chartered territory of scientific and technological frontier. My goal is just exposing the flawed beliefs to put the research efforts on the right tracks. Once it is on the right tracks, it is a vast un-chartered territory of scientific and technological frontier. Everyone can run as fact as he can on the right path to stake claims to new discoveries and inventions.

                All I want to see is real AI (Artificial Intelligence) in my life time by opening up the vast un-chartered territory of scientific and technological frontier. I don’t think, I am neither smart enough nor qualified (or have experience or funds), so I hope smart people would take up the research on AI.

            Dr. Peter, why don’t you try, instead of nitpicking my writing style? You are brilliant, but you are not opening minded and have very little imagination. You need to have open mind to see possibilities for exploration. You need to think differently and use your imagination to find things others missed.  If you think, I am right you can use this to get early head start. If you are also entrepreneur, you invest your time to find missing places in my patents to invent better patents. I openly admit that, my patents are only just a tip of an iceberg even in CBSD. I feel, you are pessimist. Pessimist are bad entrepreneur, and usually end up as CFOs. I am very conservative optimist don't mind taking big risks - I already risked 15 years of my life and ready to risk another 15 years.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            What percent of nature and properties of electrons we know? We still don’t know a lot about the structure of electrons (e.g. scientists are struggling to discover by using theories like string theory). But we know enough to invent wonderful thing such as computer chips. Likewise, we don’t know a lot of facts about the nature of light (e.g. particle or wave duality), but we know enough to invent wonderful thing such as fiber optic networks.

            In fact, advancements in such inventions helped us know lot more facts about the light and electrons. Please see how inventions helping improve our scientific knowledge. Scientific progress helping technological progress, which in turn helping scientific progress. This spiral have been continuing for decades.

            We know very little about nature and properties of Viruses or Bacteria, but whatever we know helped mankind to invent treatments for certain infections. We don’t need to every thing. We need to know enough to invent real-software-components for achieving real CBD for software. The real-CBSD over time will help us to learn lot more about the components, which will help improve real CBSD, and this spiral continues.

            Today computer science has all the characteristics of pseudo-science. It has many unproven beliefs at the root (as its core scientific foundation). Software researchers blatantly violated and continue to violate basic scientific principles and process. Software researchers not only tolerate inexplicable anomalies and contradictions but vigorously defend the contradiction and also violations of basic scientific principles and process by using silly excuses (or more baseless beliefs) and insults (or personal attacks), instead of using facts to counter facts – Don’t real scientists required to use facts or evidence to counter facts or evidence. https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_real_Science_What_is_not_a_real_Science_ie_pseudo-science_What_are_the_striking_differences_between_Real_Sciences_Pseudo_Sciences

           It certainly passes the Duck test with flying colors: If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like quintessential duck (e.g. has feathers, webbed feet and satisfies every other aspect), then what are the chances that it is not a duck?

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            You still want references, refer to 1968 NATO Software Engineering Conferences that defined objective of CBSE is to build software by assembling COTS, and ever since software researchers have been working on inventing reusable or standardized components. When they realized that it is impossible, they started calling any kind of useful software part is a kind of component (or defining component models) and defined each kind of CBSE is using one or more kinds of fake software components.

            Ask any one, what the objective of ideal CBSE is. They tell you, it is building software applications by assembling COTS (Commercially Off The Shelf) components from 3rd party vendors. They give analogies such as Software-ICs, or building software as we computer makers (e.g. Dell or HP) build computers, by using  3rd party COTS (Commercially Off The Shelf) components.

            It is easy to prove that the above path is fundamentally flawed. If you investigate the truth and reality, it is not hard to realize that it is nothing more than 21st century alchemy: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/main-differences.html

            My perception of reality of CBSD is summarized in this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design. This may not be perfect, but it is certainly in the right direction. It is impossible to make any useful inventions or discoveries in a wrong path.

                Software researchers wasted over 45 years on this wrong path. If they start now, I can guarantee that software researchers might need at most 2 or 3 years to succeed in achieving real CBSD in my path, mostly based on how long skeptics could slow the process by creating FUD.

Best Regards,

Raju

Article What is true essence of Component Based Design?

Dr. Peter, I typed that para at the middle and moved to top. The COTS is defined in the middle. Also I added last para later, while you are writing your reply.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Many experts felt that there was nothing wrong in geocentric model. If you start rationalizing, you can rationalize any thing. There is nothing wrong, if you want to maintain paradox and stay ignorant.  You not just read, but try to feel and empathies with Galileo’s quotes

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

"Names and attributes must be accommodated to the essence of things, and not the essence to the names, since things come first and names afterwards." … Galileo Galilee

"Nature is relentless and unchangeable, and it is indifferent as to whether its hidden reasons and actions are understandable to man or not." … Galileo Galilee

            Remarkably I am facing the same issues. I said, facts and reality about the physical things is immutable (but our perception evolves and changes).

            Please keep in mind that products are built by using two kinds of parts. The first kind of parts are (1) ingredient parts such as silicon wafer-maps,  TMT steel, cement, plastic, metals or alloys etc.- These kinds of parts are highly reusable across product families and highly standardized. The other kinds of parts are (2) components – That are generally not reusable and often custom designed to a given product model but are replaceable (i.e. easy to disassemble and re-assemble).

            I am not saying reusable parts are not useful – But they are not components. If you want to invent components, you must know that they are not components.

            Can you imagine building complex physical products such as Cars, Airplanes, computers or Rail engines without using components? It is not even practical to build and operate such large products without even using “interchangeable components” – Just study the history of making muskets before and after invention of “interchangeable components”.

            If we invent real software components, we can create 100 times more complex software than practical today for solving 100 times more complex problems. Also eliminates over 90% of the cost and complexity and increases over 20 folds. Since it requires only 1/10th time to make changes, you can keep your products aligned with evolving business needs. Since experimentation costs 1/20th , one can innovate 10 times faster. I can go on endlessly. These are just small list of benefits I am aware of.

          That is, we will get these benefits within 5 to 10 years, without any new discoveries or inventions (i.e. by normal refinement of existing inventions). But no one can predict what kind of great discovery is just around the corner, when research effort is going on right path. If people like you were successful in “denying scientific principles, and succeeded in maintain the geocentric paradox”, world still would not have discovered universal gravity or Newton’s laws of motion.

             Even the greatest minds Kepler or Galileo could not have imagined what is around the corner (e.g. They didn’t even speculated that there is a force of attraction that is keeping the planets in orbits). I can’t imagine what great discoveries can be made, but I can assure you that many great discoveries can be made, if research is progressing on right path. If you want research to proceed on right path, you must not maintain paradox by denying basic scientific principles and rules.

            If you can’t understand this simple logic, there is no point in endless discussion. You are not that stupid, so I am sure you are just pretending to not understand this. So let’s stop this here. I will respond, if you ask any intelligent question. Good night. Its my bet time. I am tired. 

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            I answered this question very clearly. Please understand the reality: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/main-differences.html. Software deals with 100s of kinds of product families. Automobile engineers deal with just one product family. Computer engineers deal with just one product family.

            You can’t use components from compilers product family in video games product family. Also please see 3 minute video and pay attention to 15 seconds bit just after 2 minutes. This is how each of the components for one-of-a-kind products is designed free from spaghetti code.

            I am sure, Wright brothers not went out looking COTS for propellers – They need to invent them. Also only real components can be disassembled and re-assembled. You can’t disassemble ingredient parts such cement or steel from the products. You can’t disassemble ingredient parts such as silicon or metal-oxide from semiconductor chips, to replace with improved metal-oxide.

            Software engineers have been exploring ways to increase reuse for 50 years (by calling ingredient parts as components). Software engineers never even heard of replaceable components to even explore them. Just explore and see where it takes.

            As a researcher you need to investigate every evidence and path with open mind and go wherever the facts lead. But software researchers defined goal of building software products by “assembling” COTS – That is a fantasy - They have been wasting time to fabricate facts to fit the fantasy. None of the so called components can be “assembled” – they are used just as ingredient parts. Using the parts in NOT assembling.

           Please see my architecture: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html Each component is plugged into a CASE-Tool that creates and manages communication code: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/Sample_SoA_CASE_tool.html. It works perfectly, but one can implement far superior CASE-tools.

For example, you can’t through components into the hood of a car and expect the components to self assemble. But software components are not dumb metal pieces, so they can self-assemble. If you see the CASE-Tool, it is almost doing that for non-GUI components, since non-GUI-components don't need such rigid component hierarchy.

              Dr. Peter, you are investigator and you need to gather the entire evidence, and investigation must be guided by the facts, but not by prejudice or preconceived notion. You want to prove reusable parts are components and trying to fabricate facts to prove it.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Just use common sense: Don’t define ingredient parts are components, just because they useful properties such as reusable or standardized etc. Don’t call using ingredient parts “assembling” – Using ingredient parts is not assembling.

Don’t violate proven scientific processes and principles: Don’t define nature and properties (e.g. CBSD or components) and try to invent scientific facts to fit. Scientific facts can only be discovered – They can’t be invented.

Any scientific discipline (e.g. botany, zoology or chemistry) ends up as a fake science, if the scientists violate proven basic scientific processes and principles. Only fake scientists continue to violate proven basic scientific processes and principles even after knowing that they are violate proven basic scientific processes.

Real scientist must not have any problem understanding and following basic scientific rules. I am searching for real scientist in computer science, if they exist. No one can help fake scientists.

Dr. Peter, I know you understood what I said. In India, you can wake up a person really sleeping, but you can’t wake up a person pretended to be sleeping. Stop couching me. I may be not smart, but not stupid.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            I clearly defined ingredient parts (e.g. cement, steel, plastic or metals) in one of my previous messages. No one can wake one pretending to be sleeping. No one can discuss with such selective memory.

            Let me provide irrefutable proof that computer science is a Fake science. Just read last 3 pages of attached PDF file. Any scientific discipline that violates basic scientific processes is a fake science. Any one fail to understand this simple logic is a fake scientist. I don’t need fake scientists.

Bye,

Raju

Dr. Peter,

I never said that it is not a great idea – I only called it 21st century alchemy. Alchemy was a great idea and vision, and great researchers pursued it during the dark ages  – But I am wondering why they gave up such great vision and fantasy? May be you should take up alchemy or any other such great vision:-).

        Isn’t common sense that you need real components for real CBD? No large physical functional part is a component, if it can’t be disassembled and re-assembled. So first try to invent software components that can be easily plugged-in (e.g. by writing 2 or 3 lines of code) and one must be able to un-plug or replace it by changing the 2 or 3 lines any time in the future.

P.S: Achieving real CBD for any product is implementing 90% of the application code (e.g. features and functionality) in such real replaceable components.

Bye,

Raju

 The question is interesting… Simple answer is nobody willingly want to be martyr… The present situation shows well that those who are making something honestly (same research is leading to new discovery) immediately exists strong possibility for they become victims of authorities… The punishments methods changed. In the occidental “democracy”, where the “science” is accepted, cannot be used visible method like in time of Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei… Exist the next methods: forced job termination, making such a social condition that not permit activity of researcher (existential terror), make wrong treatment at doctor, destroying health of researcher, interesting suicide, unexplained accident,… etc.

Dr. Peter,

            Juts see the reality. You can plug in hard drive. You can plug-in CD player. See equivalent software components:  http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html. I created thousands of them to learn the reality – Confirm reality.

You can’t learn such tacit knowledge by reading. Can you learn swimming or riding bicycle by reading 1000 books for 20 years? You need to write code, but you can’t learn programming by 1000 Java books. You are just wasting your time and my time. Have you ever heard about gestalt shift and term like incommensurable?

You can freely download my GUI-API from Pionner-soft.com to build real-software-components (i.e. replaceable components). Even fresh graduates or junior Java programmers using the API to build large replaceable components, which can be plugged-in by writing about 3 lines of code: http://www.pioneer-soft.com/realairtraffic - The replaceable component for TAB has GIS for 5-cities, where each city has 2 replaceable components.

This is my last reply to you. Instead of bothering me, why don’t you take up Alchemy :-(. I know you understood every thing, but I can’t understand your motive – And I don’t care any more. Even fresh graduates didn’t problem understanding CBD- structure.  I know you are not that stupid. You can’t fool me any more. I though or hoped you changed, but you will never change.

Bye,

Raju

Dear Mr. Horvath,

            Thank you. You are right. I could not believe this kind of thing is possible in the 21st century, especially to the researchers of the freest nations USA and India. I am self funded, so no one can fire me. Only thing they can do is insult or attack personally. Most so called scientists are cowards and incompetent, so don’t do it in open forums and refuse to engage open debate.

                I have conclusive proof to show computer science became a fake science.  Please read last 3 pages of attached PDF for a brief proof. It already cost at least a trillion dollars and if I fail, it would cost trillions more.

           By nature I am shy and quite – Always stay away from confrontation and lime light. If I give up, this error might never be exposed in my life time. If I give up, I am sure I would regret for rest of my life.

          Also I was insulted, humiliated and viciously attacked by many respected researchers including a person called Peter T. Bruner 2 years ago. If I give up, it is like admitting I am wrong and disserve the humiliation. If it is ethical, I am seriously exploring possibility of taking legal action against government funded and government research organizations.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dr. Peter,

            I ignored you and you must learn some manners. Don’t keep posting and repeating your self.

My observations of difference between real scientists and fake scientists:

--Real scientists engage in productive intellectual debate, for example they use facts or evidence to counter facts or evidence, if they don’t agree. But pseudo scientists resort to childish insults, snubbing or evasive excuses to cover up their incompetence.

            If you are not a fake scientist, counter facts and evidence by using facts and evidence. Show me a single hard or even soft science having beliefs (i.e. fantasies and fiction) at it core foundation. Don’t let me repeat this thing again and again:

          Today computer science has all the characteristics of pseudo-science. It has many unproven beliefs at the root (as its core scientific foundation). Software researchers blatantly violated and continue to violate basic scientific principles and process. Software researchers not only tolerate inexplicable anomalies and contradictions but vigorously defend the contradiction and also violations of basic scientific principles and process by using silly excuses (or more baseless beliefs) and insults (or personal attacks), instead of using facts to counter facts – Don’t real scientists required to use facts or evidence to counter facts or evidence.

            It certainly passes the Duck test with flying colors: If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like quintessential duck (e.g. has feathers, webbed feet and satisfies every other aspect), then what are the chances that it is not a duck?

           Read this first: It is not a violation of scientific process to rely on axioms or assumption for proposing theories to investigate or explore new and unexplored areas of scientific frontiers. In fact, it may be not only essential but also the only way. The theories you mentioned are at the frontiers of scientific knowledge & used to expand the frontiers of scientific knowledge.

               But it is certainly a gross violation of scientific principles to not document such beliefs or conclude such beliefs as inalienable self-evident facts for evolving a complex scientific paradigm. The belief “the Earth is static” ended up at the core of mankind’s scientific knowledge and paradigm – The geocentric paradigm.

             Notice the critical difference between these two kinds (1) using documented beliefs to advance the frontiers of scientific knowledge and (2) having unknown or undocumented beliefs at the very core of our scientific knowledge and mature deeply entrenched paradigm of a scientific discipline.

            Now show me even a single example, where core foundation is fiction. In real sciences: Every fact at the foundation is not only documented, but also its proof is also documented so that the proof can be falsified, if there is a flaw (if and when possible any time in the future). No real scientists have any problem understanding these things. They built the TVs and fiber optic networks, not the fake scientists who are crying software engineering is in crisis.

Bye,

Raju

Dr. Peter,

            You didn’t give me not even single example. But I am giving you million examples below:  Real engineering and inventions must be rooted in real sciences (i.e. scientific facts) - The magical inventions of TVs, cars, Airplanes, Smart phones and million other magical things we take it for granted today are possible because they are not rooted in flawed beliefs. Software engineering Crisis will magically disappear in no time, if computer science starts relying on facts (rather than relying on fiction or fantasy to pursue 21st century Alchemy) –

              This magic is called real science.  Only fake scientists can’t or pretend to not understand this: – Not even single invention is possible, if there are flaws in the scientific facts.  Such millions of magical inventions could not have existed today, if fake scientists were to succeed 400 years ago in killing truth and facts called heliocentric model. I am sure, fake scientists might be having lot of fun even today killing and impressing real scientists even today.

            Even the Supreme Court of the USA realized this obvious fact, when they killed software patents, by given exception to software inventions that are technical in nature rooted in real scientific knowledge. That judgment in fact strengthened software patents for real engineering inventions – And anther recent judgment made it very simple to triple the damages, if any one blindly violates such real patented inventions. The Supreme Court judges are impartial non-technical persons – not scientists or engineers. Even they don’t have no problem understanding that engineering is rooted in scientific knowledge. Also learn FBI motto: Investigate evidence with open mind and go wherever facts lead. Fake scientists must try that. The fake scientists or irrational skeptics are enemies of real science and progress: http://ezinearticles.com/?Irrational-Skepticism&id=428104

               The three layers of any invention: The bottom layer and very foundation for each and every invention is scientific knowledge and facts. The engineering must rely on flawless scientific facts and knowledge to make useful inventions –The top layer is creativity and artistic layer to make the inventions beautiful and/or user friendly etc.

                 The magical inventions of TVs, cars, Airplanes, Smart phones and million of other magical things are testaments to the degree of truth in mankind’s scientific knowledge and facts. No invention can work, if there are fatal flaws in the scientific facts or knowledge in the bottom layer. The failed efforts spanning over 40 years for real CBSD and real AI are best example for this.  The failed real CBSD and real AI are proof that, basic facts have fatal flaws. I tried the magic of real science and secured 6 US patents on real CBSD.

Bye,

Raju

Dr. Peter,

            You can’t find solution for scientific problems in mathematics. Mathematics can’t find cures for infections. To find treatments for infections, one needs to acquire scientific knowledge and facts about the causes of infection, such as, nature and properties of viruses and bacteria.

            We don’t know million things about nature and properties of viruses and bacteria, and still we know enough to treat certain infections. If we know more facts, we can treat more kinds of infections. Why are you going to doctor? Wait until there all the facts are known and cures for all the infections are invented.

            Each problem belongs to a certain domain and you need to find solution that can address. You use mathematics where it can be useful. You can’t use mathematics where it is useless. In case of things like real CBSD or Intelligence equivalent to living things, mathematics is useless.

            You asked what is real science: One of the essential requirements for real science is to strictly follow scientific processes and principles, such as, not relying on unproven beliefs. Only relying on proven facts, where the proof must be well documented, so that it can be falsified, if and when possible any time in the future. Any science that blatantly violates basic scientific processes and principles is a fake science. Any scientists having PhD, but can’t understand this simple logic is a fake scientist.

            You asked me what is not real engineering: Parts of engineering ends up as a flawed engineering, if the parts are rooted in scientific knowledge and facts, which have fatal error. This is not the fault of software engineers. It is the fault of software scientists, who provided scientific knowledge and facts (having fatal errors).

                Trying to address problems not belong to mathematical domain using mathematics (or can’t be addressed using mathematics) is pure wrong – Not understanding this obvious mistake is pure stupidity or foolish. If mathematicians can’t solve the problems (e.g. CBSD or real AI), they must admit that it is not in their domain and allow real scientists to address the problems.

                Instead, you are foolishly trying to monopolize computer science exclusively to mathematics as if it is your private property. Computer science is not private property exclusively belongs to mathematicians. You wasted the lives of software engineers for decades dealing with spaghetti code, or big ball of mud: http://www.laputan.org/mud/

             Design of no other complex product in the world is infected with spaghetti code, except software products. Why is that? Why I can’t find even a single large real-software-component (that is equivalent to large physical functional replaceable component that are free from spaghetti code, or big ball of mud)? You wasted lives of millions of software engineers for more several decades (due to error prone spaghetti code).

                When software engineers like me realized the waste and want to fix it, fake scientists like you using every dirty trick in the book to sabotage it. Computer science also belong to software engineers – mathematicians have no monopoly rights. Fake scientists like you can’t held Computer science as a hostage for mathematics and make software engineers endure spaghetti code, or big ball of mud for many more decades.

                 No other component or product in the world is infested with spaghetti code. There is no valid reason software products alone must be infected with spaghetti code, or big ball of mud. My goal is liberating the software engineers from fake scientists by eliminating the spaghetti code. Don’t write 5 lines of code and think that is software engineering.

               During 1992 and 1993, when I was working for Oracle corporation (for Release of Version 7.1) I had to locate and fix bugs in millions of lines of code. When I fix a bug, I need to compile it overnight and test whole system meticulously for days or even weeks. Why can’t I unplug the component and fix the bug and test the component “individually”, as the less skilled airplane mechanics have been doing for airplanes such as many models of Boeing 747 or Airbus 380 around the world.

                Solve this problem of spaghetti code, if you can solve this problem using mathematics. If you can’t solve it, step aside and let others solve it using whatever means possible. Don’t held computer science and software engineering as hostages to your prejudice and incompetence. Stop wasting lives of millions of hard working software engineers.

                You have no real world experience. You gave us pseudo engineering and then world insults software engineers are not real engineering – Soo many bugs and no structure. If you can’t help (by finding solutions), decent people keep quiet and let other people find solutions.

             Don’t divert topic by using evasive tricks. Don’t insult by showing 4 lines, when I am showing large replaceable components created by plugging-in 10 large replaceable components: http://www.pioneer-soft.com/realairtraffic

P.S: You can’t even write 4 lines of code without bugs. What is 'addr'? What type is it.

Bye,

Raju

Dear Raju Chiluvuri & Dear Peter Breuer 

I think the difference is coming by two different frame of references. Normally to solve such situation people do agree first on certain parameters and then give their arguments on those selected parameters to avoid misunderstanding based conflicts. Those parameters can be among some commonalities of two different frame of references and on certain differences as well.

I will suggest to Dear Raju Chiluvuri that be briefly and be short make a problem/ thesis statement along your describe frame of reference and enlist the parameters first and then Dear Peter Breuer can give some antithesis for that either in compliance or not in compliance.

Hope it helping.

Regards,

Dear Friends,

            I feel, things like science, philosophy and mathematics are in existence and are only tools to gain knowledge (e.g. might be even purely for intellectual curiosity) and also to solve real world problems. It is foolish to insist that contain real world problem must be solved only by using mathematics or only by mathematicians.

              The pure knowledge includes understanding reality or facts from different perspectives, which includes perspective of scientists or even philosophers (not just perspective of mathematicians). One can get better knowledge when he tries to gain knowledge form every possible perspective by strictly following rules and processes (i.e. prescribed by respective tools such as science, philosophy or mathematics).

                  My goal is to eliminate spaghetti code. I chose perspective of real science as a tool (because I felt it is appropriate tool). I know mathematics is not a right tool to do this. If it were a right tool, this problem must have fixed decades ago. If philosophy can offer better solution, others can go for it.

                    Likewise, real science is right tool to invent machine Intelligence equivalent to neural networks in the minds of living beings, such as flies or insects. I feel, we need to start from there (e.g. natural instincts are programmed in EPROM at birth and learning is programmed into Flash type memory based on experiences) and slowly build or evolved from smallest neural network.

                 Certain problems need using multiple tools. For example, philosophy and mathematics might be right tool for cognitive computing. My goal is solving the problem of spaghetti code, so I use wherever tool is available to solve the problem. Is it wrong? Just like to present my side to above few messages.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Khan,

            I agree with you on this observation: different frame of references. Kindly see my answer above. I solved this problem in the perspective of science. Dr. Peter is insisting that I must only provide solution in the perspective of mathematics. I was a mathematician and computer scientist.

              I am familiar with the perspective of mathematician. Thousands of mathematician tried to solve this problem for decades and gave up – They concluded that “there is no silver bullet (to software crisis due to spaghetti code)”. When you hit a dead end using a tool, why not try other tools.

          I found a solution by using perspective of science. I have to present and prove the solution in the perspective of science. I openly put the proof in web sites. But certain people trying to derail my efforts by using unfair tactics.

           I am not speculating, but saying I found a solution using real science as a tool and asking to validate the discoveries and irrefutable proof in the form of inventions. Dr. Peter is implying that it is heresy to use scientific process, since computer science is private property of mathematicians. 

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Please explain to me how it (i.e. components you described above) solves software crisis or spaghetti code problem? If I am building any large physical product, I can partition it into replaceable components, where each component is designed, built and tested individually.

            Each replaceable component is made as best as it can be (by an engineer or team of engineers free from spaghetti code). Then all the replaceable components are assembled to see, if they fit properly and are working with each other as expected. The following process is repeated until the components fit perfectly and working with each other optimally: Each of the components is unplugged to refine little-by-little (individually free from cognitive dissonance or spaghetti code) until it fits perfectly and functions optimally in the product.

            There is no valid reason why we can’t build software products using this CBD process. If an application has 200K lines, why can’t we divide this into 100 replaceable components of average size 2000 (e.g. +/-750) lines of code. Then 100 engineers can create these 100 components, where each engineer designs, builds and tests each component individually (to make it as-best-as it can be) free from spaghetti code. Then each component is plugged into the application (i.e. a CASE-tool that creates communication code and manages coupling interfaces) by writing about 3 lines of code, hence total code of 300 (i.e. 3*100) lines.

            Each and every large physical product created by assembling replaceable components. Not even single software product is created by assembling replaceable components. Not even 10% of features and functionality (i.e. code) of software products is implemented as replaceable components. – No one even heard about such replaceable components or even aware of possibility of such replaceable components. Such replaceable components are free from spaghetti code, each of them can be redesigned and tested individually at a fraction or the cost/time – That is, they are 10 times agile.

            The links in the page  http://real-software-components.com/moredocs.html provides proof using the tool or method called “rationalism”. I created first ever GUI technology in the world that is capable of creating such replaceable components, which provides proof using the tool or method called “empiricism”. I feel “rationalism” and “empiricism” are tools to prove or gain knowledge, where each provides a complimentary perspective to gain knowledge and to validate a discovery or invention.

            Software engineers have been in disparate need of eliminating software crisis by eliminating spaghetti code. If the designers of physical products were prevented from using replaceable components, they face crisis no different from designers of software products. For example, compare CBD-structure in FIG-2 and sample structure of a small software product in FIG-3 . Even the FIG-3 is 100 times better than the code structure of software, but gives an idea: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/CBD-structure.html.

             Just imagine the complexity of replacing a CD-player in your car having 200 devices, where 50 dives are randomly mixed with 100 of devices of other component under the hood, and another 50 dives are randomly mixed with 100 of devices of other components in the trunk, and 50 dives are randomly mixed with 100 of devices of other components in the dashboard, and so on. This is the structure of the software products. If the physical products are designed this way, don’t they face even greater crisis than software.

                 Please keep in mind each device in a component need to be tightly coupled to other devices of the component, because devices with in component would have high degree of synergy (it may be not right term, but I couldn’t find a word that can describe my tacit knowledge of internal structure of a self-contained component or essential properties). However, the components by nature would have very low degree of synergy or dependencies with other components, so can be designed with loosely coupled interfaces.

                 One must gain this tacit knowledge of nature and properties of physical functional components to positively identify features and functionality that can be implemented as a replaceable component.

                 Dr. Peter, the important thing is we have to solve huge well known problem referred to as software crisis by eliminating spaghetti code. It can be easily solved using the perspective of natural sciences. I am presenting a way I solved this problem. It really not important how it is solved. If you have better idea, go for it.

Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            I clearly explained using an example. If any large physical product such as car is designed as we design software, the automobile engineering would end up in crisis no much different from software engineering.

            For example, look at a simple GIS application having just two replaceable components City_ATC and City_ER (Emergency response), where assume it requires implementing 2000 lines of code for each replaceable component.

            Today it impossible to implement each such custom GUI component is a RCC (Replaceable Component Class). Toady software engineers are forced to merge code bases of the two components to build the application. Hence many source files contain code sections implemented for both components. This is a pure waste of time and effort. Furthermore it is makes it much harder to find code sections in this spaghetti code of a component to redesign it, if one of the components need to be redesigned or removed.

            Imagine there are 100 components like that in a larger application. It needs 10 to 20 times more time to make changes to such component, whose code sections are spread across multiple non-exclusive files. Where non-exclusive files imply source code files containing code sections for more than one such self-contained component.

            Now let’s compare that with real CBSD: Each such self-contained component is implemented just like an independent application, which can be tested and refined (any time in the future) individually. The whole code base for the replaceable components in a set of exclusive files (hence the code base is free from spaghetti code). For example: http://www.pioneer-soft.com/realairtraffic

              Since this application (i.e. self-contained component) can be implemented as a Class definition (i.e. RCC – Replaceable Component Class), it can be assembled into container component by writing just 3 lines of code, by including an object instance of the Class definition. Hence it can be removed (or replaced) by removing (or changing) the 3 lines of code. If the application has 100 such self-contained components, then 100 engineers can (1) implement each of the RCC individually in exclusive set of files free from spaghetti code, and (2) the RCC can be redesigned any time in the future free from by code in the exclusive set of files free from spaghetti code.

               In other words, in case of non-CBD about 50 code sections end up in hood along with 400 code sections for other components, 50 code sections end up in trunk along with 400 code sections for other components, and so on. How do you remove or replace such component? If you change few devices of a component, you need to test whole car for days. Today, you can unplug the component (e.g. CD-player) and test it out side by connecting to 12-VDC supply.

             To make software engineering real engineering, you need to understand why and how (i.e.  what are the factors) Ford’s moving assembly line increased manual productivity by 8 folds.  Keep in mind, assembly line was not invented by Ford and in use by all other auto makers. Ford invented only the moving assembly line and optimal processes. Interchangeable components increased manual productivity by 200 folds and quality by at least 50 folds – What are the reasons?

            Such techniques and processes can’t be leveraged without real-software-components. You need to do the research – If you want to know how we are going to solve software crisis. Otherwise we will build such tools and process for our customers and can train even junior programmers in using our automation tools. You don’t need to be hardware engineer to use computer or replace CP-player. If you want proof, you spend weeks or months. If any one wait’s to use Tools, we can provide training in couple of days.

            Some people’s minds are frozen and no amount of proof and evidence can change their minds. I am searching for people who have open mind and wiling to go wherever facts lead. I can only provide facts backed by evidence, and they should be willing to follow wherever facts lead. No one in the world can do any thing, if any one’s mind is in deep freeze. Many Truths faced that and explained using quotes such as “science advances one funeral at a time”.

          Even a year ago  I was not sure how hard it is to teach real CBD or build such GUI library. They build the library within 3 to 4 months.  Now I know it can be thought just within weeks, because I hired just a dozen fresh graduates and they have no problem understanding and implementing real CBD applications. When new graduates join, they think whole world is implementing applications by assembling RCCs, because they don’t even know how other GUI technologies and rest of the world build software.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dr. Peter,

            Your mind is frozen and in deep freeze. No amount of explanation or examples can change mind in deep freeze.

            I showed the example of City GIS to more than 100 people and how each and every component that can be implemented as RCC, but instead starts its life as spaghetti code, even if the application has just 2 components. Most of the people have no problem understanding the benefits of replaceable components.

            When they implemented such component, may be they were forced to waste lot of time merging their code sections. May be they are tired of looking at code implemented for other components, when they are searching for their component’s code to redesign the component.

            Dr. Peter, don’t waste your time understanding this. As I user science as a tool to discover nature and properties of components, I used many other things as tools such as industrial engineering, Ford’s moving assembly line and Interchangeable Components.

            If you can’t even understand basic programming concepts such as the benefits of modular development, no one in the world can help you. Today no other GUI technology in the world can build such components as a module (having autonomous and exclusive code base).

            Let me teach you, what teachers teach in the first year of computer science: (1) modules are good and (2) spaghetti code is bad. I haven’t met any one yet, who didn’t know this or couldn’t understand this. Only thing, they argue is that it is impossible to implement 90% of the code of large application in such replaceable modules.

            In conclusion, don’t waste your time. You have no experience in software engineering. You never developed any large components. If you develop a large component for any large application, you would understand how much time you need to waste searching for code section in multiple non-exclusive files (where the non-exclusive files contain over 70% code implemented for many other components by many other engineers).

            I implemented a large component for an application. I took leave for 3 months per personal reason. My manager asked a new engineer to add couple of simple features. The new engineer didn’t know code well, so changed so much code and messed up the design not just code for the component but also cod for other components. It was a mess.

            If I were to design that component as a RCC, he could not touch (or even seen) code implemented for other components. If messed up the code, as soon as I returned, I could have restored previous version and ask him to start over again. The code base is sand boxed, so he couldn’t damage any other code. Experienced people certainly experience this kind of pains multiple times. If you ever developed large system, you must not have problem understanding this. So let’s not waste time.

Bye,

Raju

Dr. Peter,

            If you really done that, have you never encountered problems with spaghetti code? How many times you need to go back and change the features and functionality, since they are not exactly what user needed or found a better way of implementing (or found short comings)..

            I never met an engineer in my life, who didn’t encounter these problems almost every week. If I implement a component, I would change it at least 10 times, before I am satisfied with its design and functionality. Once I am done with implementing any component, I would find out ways I could improve it or short comings. The minute I show it to the user and notice how user uses it or based on his questions, I realize I need to change it or can improve it. This is how any one in the world builds useful things. Read the famous book by famous engineering historian Henry Petroski “Evelution of Useful things”. http://real-software-components.com/misc_docs/EvolutionOfUsefulThings.html

            No one in the world create perfect product in the first attempt. It never happened in the history of mankind. You claim 4000 lines a day. That is at least 4 times more productive than the best programmer in the world, if it is useful code. It is like saying; you can run 5 times faster than Olympic gold medallist. Dr. Peter please doesn’t lie. No one in the world believes you. Look at the statistics. They are all over the place. Search for average cost per 100 lines of code. Or search for average productivity of best engineers. Everybody thinks that you are a fool, if you say you can run 5 times faster than Olympic gold medallist.

            In every other industry first mover has distinct advantage, except for software products. Can you answer why? It is because, it is harder to adopt to changing needs.

                   It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change  --  Charles Darwin

            The second mover has a luxury of knowing what exactly user wants and market knowledge. They can build better and simple product to precisely address the market needs. The first mover stuch in the “big ball of mud” (i.e. spaghetti code)  to change code. The designers of physical product have no such problem due to Component based design. Let me explain modular design in next message.

Regards,

Raju

Dear Friends,

            My goal is to achieve for software products, the best modular design ever invented by mankind. Modular design eliminates spaghetti code, increases the degree of division of labor, specialization and more conducive to automation. These factors increased manual productivity by 200 folds during past 200 years.

                  Every human activity uses these factors, so they were there for 1000 years. But we can increase manual productivity by increasing the degree of these factors.

                 Every large physical product is designed using the modular design. No one can achieve such modular design without inventing loosely coupled self-contained modules (i.e. replaceable components). Please kindly see FIG-2 that illustrates the logical structure of modular design: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/CBD-structure.html. Please notice: If I unplug module-3, it effectively removes all its sub-modules (i.e. 4 and 5) or devices leaving no traces.

                  This is called CBD structure or Hierarchy of Replaceable Components. This is the best modular design ever invented and widely used by designers of each and every large physical product in the world. I put all the evidence openly in my web sites. Also 6 US patents granted to our company meticulously explains how such components can be created and used, which is required by patent law.

              Dr. Peter claiming that he wrote on average 4000 lines of code per day. I am not claiming that I can run 5 times faster than Olympic gold medal winner. But I can demonstrate that, using our GUI technologies even junior Java programmer can be more productive and can build more complex GUI application for web than even the best engineer in the world. I openly put the evidence on the web at pioneer-soft.com and asked Google and Microsoft researchers, when I met them in conferences.

        The tools make all the deference. Even the best sword fighter in the world is not a match to ordinary soldier carrying machine gun in an open battle field - The tools make the difference. We invented such Tools for software developers.

             My claims are backed by evidence (both empirical as well as rational) and patents Nums: 7827527, 7840937, 8527943, 8392877, 8578329 and 9058177. Dr. Peter backed his claim by showing 4 lines of buggy code, and he had to change his response 3 times to explain the bug (I noticed it but don’t want to nit-pick on it, until his claim that he is 5 times more productive than best programmer in the world). I am only asking him to provide proof openly for any one to verify.

         On the other hand, I am begging real scientists to verify my claims. If they don’t, I am exploring if it is ethical to take legal action against tax payer funded research organizations – to compel them to verify my claims (please see my question at the top of this thread).

Best Regards,

Raju

Dr. Peter,

            I still can’t wrap my mind around your claim of 4000 lines of code. Did you add a zero by mistake? Again math doesn’t add up. Three months means 60 days, which means not 100K but 240K (i.e. 60*4K = 240K). I searched internet and found out, it is about 1000K per week may be believable.

            I remember, I added 15K lines in 5 to 6 week for 500K lines product. The components barely worked – That is first acceptable quality working prototype. It was in 1994, so I my memory may be off by 20%. After showing the prototype of components, I got tones of feedback from users and marketing manager - May be I spent 12 to 16 weeks to improve little-by-little until it can be shipped. Those 5 to 6 weeks are most productive weeks. That system was installed base of 400 systems and over 90% of the semiconductor fabs in the world, doing very critical yield analysis and monitoring of defects in the chip manufacturing.

Please tell me net productivity. Total time taken is 21 weeks for 15K lines, before it can be shipped. It went through rigorous testing by an independent Q&A team and I am only responsible for fixing bugs. My average productivity may be half of that. I was top programmer, so every company I worked for (except Oracle) offered me project, when I started a software consulting company in India. If you use IDE’s, you select few buttons and it generates few hundred lines of code such as class definitions etc. You can’t count that as your code.

Many people go to sites such as github and get few thousand lines of code to paste in their applications. Is that code counts? Our reusable Java classes for GUI components generate few thousand lines of optimal SVG, CSS, JavaScript, HTML, SMIL or X3D code, when user instantiates a Java object and inputs run-time data. User writes only 5 lines, but generates 2500 lines of code.

Please don’t give me vague numbers and vague explanations. Give me specifics such as what is the net productivity when the code is shipped. Who else is contributed. In my case, the Q&A team did all the testing of whole product. Also few customers did beta testing, before we can release. The product KLA25xx was one of the most successful software products during 1990s used in semiconductor manufacturing and had installed base of 90% semiconductor fabs.

If you search on the internet, you would know that it is 10 times more than anyone ever claimed and 40 times more than best recorded productivity. When you make such huge claims, you need to provide both empirical as well as rational explanation. Only I had that kind of productivity is, when I was porting software from one OS DEC/VAX to another OS SUN/UNIX. Yes, you can see the SCCS/SVC to verify the productivity. Can I claim 4000 lines productivity per day, just because SCCS/SVC recorded the code being ported?

       You are claiming 9/lines per minute, even if you work 10 hours a day. That is, a line of code per 6 seconds. Even most typists can’t type that fast. You are claiming that you sustained that for three months. If you can do that, you can get US$1000/hour in Silicon Valley. Because I made nearly US$160/hour in 1997. I wanted to make lot more money, so I started developing software products and accidentally stumbled onto predecessor to replaceable components. - I am wondering if it was an honour or curse (see my question).

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            I only questioned you only because, you have trouble understanding even simple obvious things and because you insulted me using terms like ranting and other bad words.

            The greatest modular design ever invented is CBD (Component Based Design), which is wildly used and almost every large known physical product in the world. If 90% of their features and functionality can be implemented in replaceable functional components, why is it not possible to implement even 15% of the software products in replaceable components (that are equivalent to the physical functional components)?

            Dr. Peter, my goal is to expose the flaw at the root of software engineering, which I know for fact transforms computer science into real science and software engineering into real engineering (no different from automobile or aeronautical engineering).

            I know for fact, if this error is exposed and researchers start using real CBD, with-in few years of time about 90% of the feature and functionality would be implemented as replaceable components in every complex system (not just in GUI applications). I came to this conclusion after years of research, investigation and analysing large software code.

                      No one can see such new paradigm shifting dimensions, if their minds are frozen and in deep freeze. Mankind never experienced this kind of paradigm shift, after the shift from geocentric-paradigm to heliocentric paradigm. At least I could not find such paradigm shift after searching (i.e. look out) for many months.

                 If you want to understand, read my web-site and patents with open mind. And ask me if you have any questions in civilized manner. I provided 100s of pages of data in my web-sites and patents, you are free to find a flaw. If you are not interested, none of you forced to answer my question.

              Please don’t forget, I have my self-respect and dignity. Insulting me only shows, you character and incompetence. If you can find a fatal flaw in my discovery, that hurt me 10 times more than insults. When I started this struggle to expose this error, I know, I have to abandon software in shame and humiliation, if there is a fatal error in my discoveries. Luckily I was born and raised in remote village in India, where I can live, if you can find a fatal flaw in my discovery.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            We are in a discussion thread. This message is in continuation to previous messages. I can’t retype everything again and again. I mentioned the error 100 times before. The error is: It is wrong to rely on beliefs to define nature and properties of components and CBD (by disregarding the obvious reality and facts). There is a huge discussion to explain this in various dimensions.

            Also it would be little helpful to do little investigation. For example, when you mentioned Linus Torvalds, I wondered how big the first release of Linux. It was just 10,340 lines, when it was first released. Lot of code is taken from MINIX and many other people contributed to this first release.

            Dr. Peter any two paradigms would have completely two different contradicting concepts. Things like retrograde motions and epicycles are alien concepts for Heliocentric paradigm. Likewise, gravitation and Earth’s orbit are alien concepts for Geocentric paradigm.

            Please keep in mind, mankind probably invested 10 times more research effort on existing CBSD paradigm in past 50 years than on Geocentric paradigm during 1500 years of its existence. For example, researchers working in south India don’t know what researchers doing in north India, Europe or China. There was a huge duplication of work and extremely low productivity, because there are no tools to share knowledge like books, religious limitations and language barrier etc.

            Each paradigm has a set of concepts unique to it. My real CBSD has many new concepts no one even herd. For example, now I can search, if any one ever defined real CBD as “implementing over 90% of the features and functionality as replaceable components”. For example, if someone looks at you confused, when you say the Earth is not static, but orbiting Sun, you know he is still in dark ages. Likewise, many people look at me as if I am crazy, if I say essential nature of the components is replaceability, but not reuse or standardization.

               Most even don’t know what is meant by replaceable or separable components, which are parts that can be disassembled/un-plugged and re-assembled/plugged-in (as per my definition). The terminology like geocentric and heliocentric were proposed only after heliocentric model was proposed to differentiate one from the other. When you discover something new, you need to give a name. Why we call the computers by term computers? They do lot more things than computing. Hope you can understand my struggles.

            Galileo understood this and made many quotes. He must have fed up with asking for references, when said: ““I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations.”. Also I am sure he fed up with teaching his views, when he said: “You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him discover it in himself.”

            I feel the same way. I can only help someone, who wants to discover by investigating evidence with open mind and willing to go wherever truth leads. That is the reason I am providing evidence in my websites.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dr. Peter,

            This is the problem with you. Your mind is in deep freeze. You are incapable of understanding any other perspective. You have an attention span of teenager. I gave so many examples so many times. Go back and look at this thread. I don’t want to write 40 pages for you again. Also read last section More “Information, Validations & Proof for our Scientific Discoveries” in 4th page in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304109692_Is_it_heresy_to_request_software_scientists_to_not_violate_basic_well_established_scientific_processes_principles_proven_rules

            The problem with guys like you is, you try to insult and humiliate others to feel you are superior. If you are really great, you know it and don’t need any one else’s approval. Only people who are insecure need others’ approval. I am enduring this pain form incompetent people like you because I am pursuing a noble goal: Transform computer science into real science.

            No one in the software even know what true essence of CBD or perfect modular design is? But most of them foolishly insist it is using reusable components. Others insist real CBD is impossible, with out even knowing what it is. How could they say without even attempting to know what it is? This is monumentally foolish thing no one else done. Ever in the dark ages are 10 times more smarter, if you review Tychonic system’s Stellar parallax dilemma.

            Why are you trying to sabotage my efforts? What are your motives? I never come and insulted your work (even though I can find so many flaws) or hijacked you research by using this kind of frivolous messages.

            Is software a religion? It doesn’t require any basis in reason or logic? If some fools define that, CBSD is using any kind of useful parts (having certain properties) do every one need to blindly follow? When few high priests of software 50 years ago believe design of software products is unique and different (and foolishly not document the belief, so that it can be falsified, if it is flawed), if anyone finds proof that this belief is fundamentally flawed, does he must keep quite?

            I am not going to keep quite. You can’t stop me to speak Truth. It is a lie that, design of software products is unique and different. No one provided any proof. If any one wants proof, I can provide proof. There are dozens of such beliefs and epicycles that are lies. I have proof and I provide the proof openly.

              If you can believe anything without any basis in reality or logic (but in fact, in contradiction to obvious facts or reality), why don’t you believe that you are 18th century King of England ruler of India and order your generals to arrest me?

             It is just a common sense. You can’t believe (or wish) any thing you want, even if it is not science. If I believe a secret formula I have cures cancer, will it become a reality? Fools like you wasted 30 years of technological advancement on foolish beliefs. Now you guys are nerve to insult me for pointing that it is wrong to rely on untested beliefs?

            Stop sabotaging my efforts. You are no longer welcome in my questions. Only mentally retarded people think that it is OK to rely on beliefs (such as he can fly and jump of 10 story building). Fools like you wasted 50 years on such untested beliefs and not insulting me for trying to save future generation form such foolish mistake.

             A belief is treated fact only in fake sciences, mythologies or science fiction books. If they are not beliefs, but facts, show me proof. Nothing can be a fact without documented proof (even in mathematics, logic or soft sciences).

               Show me a single example were such untested belief is blindly treated or accepted as facts?  Else don’t sabotaging my efforts. Don't call SEs idiots, we have 10 times more common sense than you.

Bye,

Raju

Thesis Is it heresy to request software scientists to not violate b...

Dr. Peter,

            Stop side stepping and evasive answers. In what universe untested beliefs are blindly treated and accepted as facts and to rely on as facts for building major technological disciplines such as Software Engineering or Intelligent Machines?

             Show me a single example (even in soft sciences or logic - anywhere except fiction or voodoo books) where any untested belief is blindly accepted as facts and relied as facts for 30 to 40 years?

Good Bye & don’t come back without an example.

Raju