Dear Raju Chiluvuri,

Also in the 60's of the 20th century Th. Kuhn showed that a paradigm is replaced with another only when researchers can no longer handle anomalies (unanswered questions) in the old paradigm. First, the researchers ignore the anomalies, then try ad hoc hypotheses, and only then replace the paradigm. Usually paradigm shift occurs with the help of a new generation of researchers.

I suspect that IT research is before the first paradigm shift. For now, anomalies accumulate.

And yes, changing the paradigm has an important irrational component, Th Kuhn said. From this point of view it resembles a religious conversion.

Dear Dr. Sorea,

            Thank you. Software engineering is full of anomalies and contradictions. The research community coined the term “software crisis” as early as 1960s. After struggling for nearly 50 years, research community concluded that the anomalies and contradictions are very nature of software.

               Toady, the BoK (Body Of Knowledge) accumulated for past 50 years is many times more than the 16th century BoK (Body Of Knowledge) that supported geocentric paradox.

                There are many seminal books such as “mythical man month” and articles such as “Big Ball Of Mud” and “No Silver Bullet” that justify the conclusions such as anomalies and contradictions are very nature of software. Software community is refusing to look at the counter evidence by insisting that anomalies and contradictions are very nature of software.

               How could research community reach a state that they no longer handle anomalies (unanswered questions), since such anomalies and contradictions are very nature of software 2 daces ago and stopped trying to explain anomalies?

                 Saying the Truth “the Sun is at the center” in 16th century offended the common sense and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. It even led to persecution of people such as Giordano Bruno and Galileo. Even the software researchers in 21st century reacting no differently from the 16th century research community.

                 They feel offended by the fact such as: “parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled (so that they may be disassembled) are known as components”. In other words, no part can be a component, if it is not designed and/or conducive to be assembled (so that they may be disassembled). The CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) is building products by using such components, where each component is designed and tested individually and then the product is built by assembling the components.

             No flawed theory or flawed knowledge can ever be exposed, if the research community deliberately ignores counter-evidence that can expose the flaw (e.g. by using excuse that such flaws are very nature of the discipline). Isn’t it abdication of moral and ethical code of conduct for researchers and scientists?

Best Regards,

Raju

I see you are still going at it in the same way...  I still think it's the wrong way but hell, you know better.

Good luck!

Dear Dr. Martin,

            My goal is very simple. The nature and properties of physical beings (e.g. diverse species such as animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, chemical compounds or components) cannot be ideological choices.

            When man kind started accruing BoK (Body of Knowledge) for understanding the nature or universe, by concluding that “the Earth is static at the center” is self-evident fact and relying on the fact since 300BC, such efforts resulted in acquiring a huge BoK  by 16th century in support of geocentric paradigm.

            A radically different paradigm and perception of reality emerged when mankind tried to understanding the nature by that “the Sun is static at the center”. Every piece of knowledge in 16th century is consistent with each other and with the perception of reality depicted in FIG-1, 2 &3.

            But today every piece of knowledge is consistent with each other and with the perception of reality depicted in FIG-4: http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html. Every piece of knowledge in the BoK of heliocentric model are incommensurable with the perception of reality painted by the BoK for geocentric paradigm (and vice-versa).

            Dr. Martin, I found no better way than exposing the error at the very foundation of existing paradigm. If you try to build a new model rooted by relying on this”:  CBD/CBE is building products by assembling or plugging-in parts that are designed and tested individually (and are conducive to be disassembled).

             Kindly read my next message to understand the implications of relying on wrong beliefs. Also please view this video (pay attention to 5 minutes bit starting from 15 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt_iAXYBUSk

            Would you give up this kind of struggle, if you struggled to understand the reality of components and CBD/CBE 16 for years after accidentally stumbled on to components that can be plugged-in 16 years ago. I am sure you would do the same thing that I have been doing as long as you believe that no one else could falsify your discoveries.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Martin,

              Kindly allow me to summarize the implications, if I am right (that, of course, I have no doubt). I spent 16 years to make sure that I am right. It only requires at most couple of years, but I spent 16 years. Research efforts of any scientific discipline (or even any investigation such as crime) end up on a wrong path, if the research investigation relies of a flawed implicit unproven belief (by believing that the belief is self-evident, so requires no proof). There is no exception to this rule.

           The famous example is that, mankind assumed 2300 years ago that “the Earth is static at the center” and relied on the implicit belief (i.e. the Earth is static) is self-evident fact that requires no proof. This effort diverted the research efforts of mankind into a wrong path that resulted in accumulating huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) until early 16th century and resulted in a complex geocentric paradox – An fundamentally altered perception of reality.

            Mankind’s scientific knowledge would still be in the dark ages, if that error were not yet exposed. All the brilliant scientists (e.g. Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Bose or Max Plank to name a few) born since 17th century could not have made any lasting contribution, except may be exposing the flawed belief at the root of geocentric paradox. I am sure dozens of great scientists might have borne during 1000 years before the 16th century, who wasted all their lives trying to explain epicycles and retrograde motions of the geocentric paradox.

            Today, existing BoK (Body of Knowledge) for software engineering is rooted in flawed untested belief “reusable parts are software components”. Most software researchers consider that it is a self-evident fact, so requires no proof. Many brilliant minds have been wasting their efforts for past 30 years understanding the contradictions of the geocentric paradox of software engineering (that is popularly known as software crisis).

           Today, existing geocentric paradox of software engineering is supported by 20 to 30 times BoK than existed in the 16th century in support of geocentric paradox. Tens of thousands of researchers around the world have been wasting their efforts on the geocentric paradox of the software engineering.

           Each year millions of impressionable students and research scholars in the collages and universities across the world having been brainwashed into believing “it is a self-evident fact that reusable parts are components” by all the text books and research papers in unanimity.

             Sir, there is no exception to this rule: Any research or investigation efforts end up on a wrong path, if the efforts rely of a flawed implicit unproven belief (by believing that the belief is self-evident, so requires no proof). We know for fact that, no one ever tested or even questioned the axiomatic beliefs reusable parts are components and CBD/CBE is using such fake components.

           If this is an error, no meaningful or lasting advancement is possible related to CBD/CBE until the error is exposed (even if the error were not exposed for another 1000 years). Exposing this error would lead to unprecedented scientific revolution in software (e.g. exposing the error at the root of geocentric paradox lead to unprecedented scientific revolution). I hope, you could imagine the magnitude and implications, if I am right (that I have no doubt).

           What is the difference between the religion and a scientific discipline, if the beliefs at the root of a scientific discipline are fiercely defended and frighteningly impervious to evidence and objective facts?

           I have spent 16 years to make sure that I am right. I am not going to give up on this mission. Even if the nature and properties of components were ideological choice, it is wrong to suppress and kill other ideological views if the other vies contradict ideological view (reusable parts are components and using such parts are CBD/CBE) at the root of existing perception of reality.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

          Thank you fro remembering me. I though that you forgot about me and my struggles. What do you think: Can I count on the researchers to do right thing after exhausting all the options and excuses: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_I_count_on_software_researchers_to_do_the_Right_Thing_after_exhausting_all_the_options_and_or_excuses

      I asked a friend in India to introduce few VCs to raise money to take legal action against the government funded research organizations (e.g. NSF.gov, NITRD.gov and SEI/CMU) for their negligence and attempts to suppress my counter-evidences or ideological diversity (if the nature and essential properties are ideological choices like communism, capitalism or socialism).

          He spoke to his friends in software about my inventions and my plan to compel research community to investigate the evidence. They told him that, the Silicon Valley VCs would kidnap me, if I were right. They suggested that I must be gullible or crazy, because no one even listening to me. I hope, I can count on your support in my struggles.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            If and when software experts realize that I am not gullible or crazy and willing to investigate the evidence for investing money, I will hire 5 to 6 smart researchers like you and train them for 3 to 4 months to understand the alternate perception of reality. If you join my effort to create manifesto that does not mention Galileo, Kepler, bacteria, Marxists, you would realize how complex it is?

            I am loosing all the hopes of getting an opportunity for presenting evidence from respected researchers. Only way left is to drag respected government funded research organizations to courts to compel them to look at the evidence. I am sure, you were in my position, you would feel the same way.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Dear Dr. Peter,

            I believe I tried that also, but didn’t work. Please see attached PDF file unexplored potent weapon. It summarizes the method for increasing productivity. It outlines inventing and using pluggable components for reducing spaghetti code.

            The components that can be plugged-in is combined with the universal software motherboard outlined in the figure-3 at this page: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/Sample_SoA_CASE_tool.html makes it simple to redesign and test each of the pluggable component individually outside of the product. Any invention of plugs need complementary invention sockets. Likewise, pluggable software components need software sockets.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Dear Dr. Peter,

            One line summaries don’t work. Not the Earth but the Sun is at the center of our planetary system didn’t work. It took 150 years for research community to accept this fact. Likewise, CBD/CDE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) is not reusable oriented model, but assembly oriented model.

          That is, it is not necessary for a part must be reusable to be a component, but it is essential that the part must be designed and/or conducive to be assembled. In fact, about 90% of the large components are custom designed to perfectly fit and perform optimally in a target product model.

Q: Are the components useful invention?

Ans: Yes, of course. The components are the backbone of the industrial age. Can we even imagine designing and building countless component-based (or oriented) products we use every day such as cars, computers, cell-phones, airplanes, home appliances, machines or factory machinery to name a few?

Q: Why the components are so useful (i.e. to be backbone of industrial age)?

Ans: The components are the only kind of parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled or plugged-in. Hence each component can be disassembled or unplugged, for example, either to replace by a better component or to repair or redesign individually outside of the product and reassembled after testing it outside of the product (free from cognitive dissonances such as spaghetti code).

            In summary: Each component implements a sub-set of features and functionality for a product and the component can be redesigned individually to create newer or better versions evolved free from cognitive dissonances such as spaghetti code. That is, each component is free from spaghetti code. If over 90% of the features or functionality are implemented in such components that can be disassembled (or unplugged), then 90% of the features and functionality can be redesigned and evolved individually free from spaghetti code.

           That is, an ideal CBD/CBE of a product partitions over 90% of the features and functionality of the product into large number of optimal sized disjoint sets of self-contained features and functionality, where each optimal sized disjoint set of self-contained features and functionality is implemented as a part that can be assembled or plugged-in. Such parts that can be assembled or plugged-in are generally known as components in the context of designing and engineering of CBD/CBE products such as cars, computers, cell-phones, machines or machinery for factories.

           Many software researchers erroneously insist they are using components that can be plugged-in, but cannot explain where or how such components can be plugged-in? How can we use plugs without sockets to plug-in? Today there exist no complimentary enabling things such as software sockets or software motherboards that are essential for using components that can be plugged-in.

P.S: Dr. Peter you are absolutely wrong about auspicious numbers. :-) . One of my friend told me that real scientifically proven auspicious numbers are 7 and 9 :-).

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

If the components are useful, why do you think components are useful? I never heard any one saying that the components are not useful. Almost every one agrees that the components are useful engineering invention for designing and building large are complex products. Why is it harder to understand this:

Q: Are the components useful invention?

Ans: Yes, of course. The components are the backbone of the industrial age. Can we even imagine designing and building countless component-based (or oriented) products we use every day such as cars, computers, cell-phones, airplanes, home appliances, machines or factory machinery to name a few?

Q: Why the components are so useful (i.e. to be backbone of industrial age)?

Ans: The components are useful only because each of the components can be disassembled and re-assembled. The components are the only kind of parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled or plugged-in. In other words, the parts that are assembled (or plugged-in) are known as components. 

Hence each component can be disassembled or unplugged, for example, either to replace by a better component or to repair or redesign individually outside of the product and reassembled after testing it outside of the product (free from cognitive dissonances such as spaghetti code).

Conclusion: To alleviating spaghetti code from design and development by maximising modularity, It is desirable to invent parts that can be plugged-in (so that the part can be unplugged to replace or to redesign individually and test it outside of the product). Parts that can be plugged-in or assembled are referred to as components. There is no better invention than components for maximising modularity. The invention of components that can be plugged-in require enabling invention such as universal software mother board having sockets to plug-in the parts.

P.S: Peter, you need to raise funds to defend me from inquisition for heresy, since telling such simple facts is considered heresy, scam or even crime :-( even by the software researcher in the 21st century. You used to be leader :-). But, I am sure now you are no longer one of them.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Let me try this: The parts that can be assembled are referred to (or known as) the components. A part cannot be a component, if it can’t be assembled. The components are useful because each of the components can be assembled (so each of each of them may be disassembled to replace or redesign individually free from spaghetti code).

            Hence each of the components is free from spaghetti code. If over 90% of the features and functionality of any product is implemented in such components (than can be unplugged and re-plugged), then over 90% of the design and development of the product likely be free from spaghetti code.

            For example, about 90% of the features and functionality of many physical products (e.g. cars, computers, airplanes, machines or machinery for factories) is we use everyday is implemented in the components (that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled).

Most of these components are custom designed to perfectly fit and perform optimally in respective product models, so neither reusable nor conforming satisfy any existing definitions for so called software components.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            The objective of first step is to establish the fact that: The components are very special kind of parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled. As mammals are special kinds of animals, components are special kind of parts. The parts that are not assembled are not components for CBD/CBE. The animals that don't deliver babies (e.g. deliver eggs) are not mammals.

            The CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) imply assembling (or plugging-in) such parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled (such parts are known as components).

            Once the first step is established or accepted, it exposes the error at the geocentric paradigm of our software engineering. The second step is inventing software components that can be plugged-in for building software products by designing, developing and testing the components individually for each of the software products and building the product by plugging-in the components that are designed, developed and tested individually.

            There could be many ways to achieve such CBD/CBE. To prove that it is possible, all I need to show is one method. I can’t prove any thing, if you refuse to look at the examples. You are refusing to look at the examples (as the 17th century philosophers refused to look through Galileo’s telescope).

           The first step for the heliocentric model is accepting the possibility that “the Earth is not at the center”. The investigation and search for truth begins only after the first step (accepting the error), which exposes the error at the root of the dominant paradigm.

Dr. Peter, you said: Are you talking about assembly as a dynamic or static process?

            How does it mater? The goal is to alleviate spaghetti code in software, as components did for physical products. I prefer static process at object level. So I invented such components. If you prefer dynamic process, you might be able to invent components and mechanisms for dynamic process.

            Discovering the Truth “the Sun is at the center” opened up a vast unexplored area by putting the research efforts on the right path. You can expect same kind of thing, when the research efforts are put on the right path by exposing the errors (i.e. sacred dogmatic beliefs such as reusable parts are components) at the root of existing dominant paradigm.

            Newton provided proof for the heliocentric model. But it would not had been possible without the earlier contributions of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, which exposed the error (i.e. sacred dogmatic belief) at the root of the dominant geocentric paradigm.

            Keep in mind that, we are dealing with dominant software paradigm that is being supported by BoK (Body of Knowledge) 20 to 30 times more that the BoK existed in 16th century for geocentric paradigm. It is very easy to be difficult (to make my life miserable :-(. Any one can be difficult, by abdicating their moral and ethical obligations to investigate the counter evidence to unproven beliefs/myths :-) considered to be sacred by software researchers.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Dear Dr. Peter,

            It is easy to be difficult. Don’t you know the meaning of “assembling” and “disassembling” in the context of the products such as cars or computers that are built by assembling the components?

            For example, what is the meaning of “assembly” in the context of the invention of Ford’s moving "assembly" line. If you still can't understand the meaning of "assembling" and "disassembling", please observe what the mechanics are doing, when you take your car to replace tires or break pads.

       If you observe the designers of automobiles, machinery or motorbikes, one thing the mechanical engineers/designers want to do is to provide easy “service access” to the components that requires frequent maintenance or replacement. For example, components such as oil filers in car are replaced one or two times a year. Other parts that require replacing include tires, spark plugs or break pads etc.

         If you remember 20 years ago, many of us used to replace CPUs, DRAM and other parts by latest and more powerful parts to extend the life of our PCs. The motherboard provided outstanding service access to the components that are plugged into the sockets in the motherboard.

          Don’t you agree, most of the software parts in complex software applications require such outstanding “service access”, since almost every part needs frequent maintenance or replacement (e.g. for each successive releases and versions throughout the evolutionary life of the applications).

            If you are designing or maintaining complex software application, don’t you want to have such “service access” to each and every part of the complex software application?

       I am sure I want such service-access, if I need to maintain a software. Most experts agree that: Over 80% of the software engineering is changing existing code. I am sure, over 90% of the software engineers love such service-access, if they need to change code for maintaining such software. 

P.S: Dr. Peter, I made this “service access” reasoning in the papers or proposals I submitted more than decade ago to NSF.gov, DoD.gov and DoE.gov. The proposals were rejected by giving excuses such as not credible or practical. They are making similar excuses today, when I requesting them to give me an opportunity to see the evidence.

              The most famous excuse was and still is: No references to others scriptures (i.e. published papers) are provided. How is it possible to find references supporting heliocentric model in the BoK that support geocentric model. As the 16th century scientists refused to see the proof (e.g. Galileo moons) using telescope until references can be provided.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            You said: Yes, I do, but I don't know what they mean in the context of  your "components", and until you say you are not going to get anywhere.

            In the context of my components, the meaning is identical to what you know in the context of the products such as cars or computers that are built by assembling the components"?

            You also said: "No references to others scriptures (i.e. published papers) are provided". That too. To talk about stuff to people you need to relate it to what they already know. That's  "writing for an audience". You need to figure out what your audience is and what they know, and go from there.

            How long we are going to argue, if dolphins deliver babies or eggs. If every text book and research paper says dolphins deliver eggs like other fish. But you discovered that the dolphins deliver babies like mammals. The only way such debate can be resolved is by looking at the authentic source – The Dolphins. Galileo was frustrated, because no one agreed to see the evidence using his Telescope.

            I am reaching a conclusion that, only way I can compel the researchers at government funded research organizations is dragging them to court for gross negligence and abdicating their moral obligations. When counter evidence is presented, they have moral obligation to investigate the evidence to know the Truth. I requested them many times to take legal action against me, because it is much cheaper to defend (but there are no takers).

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            You can wake up a person, who is really sleeping. You can’t wake up a person who is pretending to sleep. No one can teach, if you don’t want to understand or pretend to not understand.

                  If you want to understand, this example is more than enough: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html. It has 6 components, where each component is plugged-in. The components are plugged into the virtual motherboard to allow collaboration between the components: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/Sample_SoA_CASE_tool.html (See FIG-3). Each component provides outstanding "service access".

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

             Galileo met so many researchers like that. If you want to understand, you can understand what I mean. No one in the world can teach you, if you don’t try.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Lot of words can’t be explained without example. How do you explain terms such as elephant to a person never have seen an elephant? The best way is showing pictures.

Dr. Peter said:

Well, if you want to cope with not being able to explain anything to anyone by repeating the mantra that people deliberately choose not to understand you, that's up to you! 

            Yes, I agree that many software researchers deliberately choose not to understand. I am putting in the open forum in hope of finding researchers, who might prefer to not waste their life time effort in pursuit of expanding the geocentric paradox of software engineering.

            Collages use text books, pictures, examples, home works and so on, when teaching the geocentric paradox of software engineering for years to students; finally examinations are conducted to make sure they understood the lies (i.e. properly indoctrinated into the religious cult). Students would fail the examinations, if they choose not to understand the lies.

           But I can’t use examples and proof must be limited to under 2 to 3 pages :-(. 

P.S: Hope now you understand, why I need funds to drag respected government funded research organizations to courts for compelling them to see the examples.

            Dr. Peter, I know, you want to help me. It is OK, if you are giving me hard time to make me better at presenting. It is helping. But I hope, you would defend the facts (when I am not noticing or in your private conversations). Keep in mind, I am not asking to support me. I am asking to discover the Truth and support the Truth.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Let me try. A GIS application can be built by assembling few components such as City_ATC (Air Traffic Control System), City_ER (Emergency Response system) and CityLandMark etc.

            In this case, each of the components is designed, developed and tested individually for a target application. Furthermore, these components can be refined and tested individually any time in the future to keep up with changing needs of the target users. These components can be assembled (or plugged-in) on top of a map for the city as illustrated below:

    // Include replaceable component created by developer "A"

    RepComp CityER = new CityER_RCC (ACi,ZipCode);

    this.canvas.AddChild (CityER, 0, 0, null);

    // Include replaceable component created by developer "B"

    RepComp LandMarks = new CityLandmarks_RCC(ACi, ZipCode);

    this.canvas.AddChild (LandMarks, 0, 0, null);

    // Include replaceable component created by developer "C"

    RepComp AirTraffic= new CityATC_RCC(ACi, AirportCode); 

    this.canvas.AddChild (AirTraffic, 0, 0, null);

            An automation mechanism (e.g. intelligent CASE-tool) can be and must be employed, so that these components need no more communication code for enabling collaboration between the components. Each component must not require more than 3 to 5 lines to plug-in.

Removing the 3 to 5 lines must effectively dis-assembles the component without leaving any traces. Objective is to provide outstanding "service access" to each of the features and functionality of the product, so that each feature or functionality can be maintained/repaired or replaced easily.

            Each component is custom designed to a target city. Each component can be iteratively refined and tested individually until they fit perfectly on top of the map and performs as expected. Each component can be disassembled or unplugged by removing the respective two lines.

            Additional components may be assembled by designing, developing and testing each of them individually. Then plug-in each of them at proper location of the container component. Each component can be iteratively refined and tested individually until they fit perfectly and performs as expected.

P.S: Don't behave like blind men and the elephant. Just because I am using GUI components doesn't imply, it is limited to GUI applications. Almost every text book uses Employee record to illustrate data structures. But as you know, we can use data structures to save many other kinds of information. Use your imagination to extrapolate.

P.S: These assertions can be falsified by finding a counter example: Today no other GUI-technology (e.g. from Microsoft or Apple) is capable of creating such replaceable component classes. Also no one else yet employing automation mechanism (e.g. intelligent CASE-tool or software motherboard) for creating communication code and managing communication code to allow collaboration between the components.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            How can anyone explain things, if you read partial things and jump to conclusions (with your preconceived notions to fill 80% gaps)? Can Java-AWT (or Microsoft’s Windows or Apple’s Cocoa) allows you to encapsulate a small application of size City_ATC having few dozen GUI components for Airplanes, Tool-tips and Tables to show information in a class definition (so that an object instance of the class can be assembled or plugged-in as shown in the code)?

            Can you show me a single example for such large GUI-component implemented as a replaceable component class? I am not saying, you can't implement the Air Traffic Controller. Any one can implement Air Traffic Controller in any such application. But you can't implement Air Traffic Controller as a component that can be assembled.

Remember the CBD/CBE rule: If it can't be assembled, it is not a component.

             The second requirement is employing a mechanism such as software motherboard to automatically allowing collaboration between the components that are plugged-in. I could not find, if anyone else is using such mechanism. Please read my last paragraph in my previous reply. I clearly stated differences.

            A gestalt shift requires comprehending each of the parts that form new picture. The geocentric paradigm was not subverted overnight. It started with Copernicus that questioned the flawed belief at the root of then dominant paradigm and eventually succeeded because researchers accepted the proof provided by Newton.

P.S: Data Structured programming required the ability to build and use data structures for building hierarchy of structures. Object oriented programming requires the ability to build and use objects for building hierarchy of objects.

Likewise, Component oriented programming requires the ability to build components (that can be assembled) and mechanisms to assemble the components for building hierarchy of components.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            It is the problem with you. You make statements that are not backed by evidence. A small application (e.g. such as Air Traffic Controller) uses dozens of object instances of reusable Java classes for presenting various GUI-components such as Air planes, Tables or Tooltips or charts etc.

            My contention is that, no other GUI technology is designed to encapsulate each of such mini-application having few dozen GUI-components (e.g. such as charts, Air Planes or Tables) in a replaceable component class (or RCC). If you think, I am wrong, it can be easily falsified by showing such RCCs and just one component hierarchy built by assembling such RCCs.

           Just show me just one example anywhere in the world. The world is a big place. I have been searching for over 15 years. I have been asking for such evidence for many years in this forum and many other places. I remember, I had this discussion with you few years ago. 

            It is wrong to use prejudice or beliefs to falsify such statements. I have extensive experience in building GUI applications between 1988 and 2000 in the Silicon Valley using Windows/VC++ and Unix/Motif.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Don’t you know, how to read. Please go back and read, what I said: “Can you show me a single example for such large GUI-component implemented as a replaceable component class? I am not saying, you can't implement the Air Traffic Controller. Any one can implement Air Traffic Controller in any such application. But you can't implement Air Traffic Controller as a component that can be assembled”.

            Where I said, no one can create ATC applications. Anyone can create it. But they can’t create as an RCC that can be assembled. If it is in the court, you can't use such evasive tactics :-).

            Dr. Peter, inventions such as Interchangeable Components required enabling inventions such as Jigs, Dies, Moulds or forging etc. Anyone can create component such as a trigger for Muskets 200 years ago. But problem was, it was practically impossible to build interchangeable components manually even by the best craftsmen. If you want to achieve something, you need to invent enabling inventions.

             My company has 14 engineers, each of them creating many such RCCs every week. If you want to see code, I am more than happy to show the code. My patents have detailed documentation and source code: 7827527, 7840937, 8527943, 8392877, 8578329 and 9058177

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Vergne,

            We can’t even discover the nature, properties and functioning of components in CBD/CBE to emulate CBD/CBE in building software products, how could we understand the nature and functioning of neurons in neural networks to emulate artificial intelligence.

            In my humble opinion, what you call artificial intelligence is nothing more that computing algorithm intensive rule based expert systems. The ordinary fruit fly having 250K neurons can outperform all the supercomputers in the world in navigating moving obstacles. We have no clue how minds works.

              You can’t achieve real AI until the geocentric model of software engineering is exposed. This would lead to transforming computer science into a real science – A real science requires acquiring knowledge (e.g. about nature or components and neurons etc.) by using scientific method. This is my humble opinion.

              No one asked proof for the lie “the Earth is at the center”. But the Truth faced huge resistance and hostilities. For example, researchers got killed for saying the Truth “the Sun is at the center”. The truth was perceived as heresy or fraud.

             Have you ever asked for proof for the lies such as “reusable parts are components”, and CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) is using such fake components.

          Now you perceive the Truths are heresy or fraud. Isn’t it a fact: The physical parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled are components in the context of CBD/CBE of physical products such as cars, computers or machinery etc.?. No physical part can be a component for CBD/CBE, if it can’t be assembled.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Just let me provide a link: http://www.pioneer-soft.com/realairtraffic. It is hosted on a cheapest hosting plan in India, I can afford. So be patient, until it loads. It is created by assembling many RCCs.

   The RCC for each city is created by assembling 2 RCCs (I think). Then 5 RCCs for five cities are passed to TAB-component. If you can't build such RCCs, you can't assemble them to build such component hierarchy. The TAB-object can be passed as sub-component etc.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            First of all, please make sure your web site works. I am getting 404: Not found. RCC stands for Replaceable Component Class, where replaceable imply a component that can be dis-assembled and re-assembled.

            We created reusable Java classes for several hundred or even a thousand GUI components and container-components that can assemble the GUI-components or other container GUI components. The following web pages provide a small sample:

http://pioneer-soft.com/privatedoc/Samples/SampleDocHTMl/MultipleDails.html  (for IoT)

http://pioneer-soft.com/privatedoc/Samples/SampleDocHTMl/IOTSmall.html  (for IoT)

http://pioneer-soft.com/privatedoc/Samples/SampleDocHTMl/MultiChartsDemo.html

http://pioneer-soft.com/privatedoc/Samples/SampleDocHTMl/PS_TreeDemo.html

http://pioneer-soft.com/privatedoc/Samples/SampleDocHTMl/MultiGuages.html

http://pioneer-soft.com/privatedoc/Samples/SampleDocHTMl/MultipleKnobs.html

http://pioneer-soft.com/privatedoc/Samples/SampleDocHTMl/PS_ResuableTreeComponent.html

P.S: Each of our engineers can create a reusable Java class for any new GUI component (e.g. a new kind of chart, Dial or Meter) within 2 to 3 man days.

            We have also rich set of 3D real-time GUI components (that can be rotated) and also 3D maps (that can be rotated or tilted etc). Now working on rich set of components for SCADA.  All these GUI-components can be used for creating the RCCs for building component hierarchies by assembling such components.

You said:

Two lines of code please (**). Not containing "new" or "addChild". If you can't do that, just say!

            I am not smart as you. Why don’t you enlighten me. I can't do it without "new". I need to assemble the component as a sub-component of a container-component. Different container-components provide different methods such as addChild.

I can do it using online:

this.canvas.AddChild (new CityER_RCC (ACi,ZipCode), 0, 0, null);

           But I choose to make it more readable and like to give a name for the object instance such as CityER. This makes it simple to unplug the component, by searching and removing each of the lines that use CityER (if the 2 lines are not next to each other).

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            You crossed a line that no longer considered professional. Don’t dictate how I should write code. If I want to use “new” or name a function “AddChiled” in my Java class, it is up to me. In Java, the “new” is the way you create an instance of an object for a class. I hope, you keep your answers civilized and support that by facts, evidence and/or sound reasoning.

Dr. Vergne,

              In scientific method there is no room for beliefs. Each belief or assumption must be well documented as such and it must be open to falsification by producing evidence. Each scientific discipline (e.g. botany, zoology, virology or chemistry) is a BoK (Body of Knowledge) accumulated by employing the “scientific method”.

       If you choose to violate “scientific method”, then don’t call it science. No real scientist would say untested and unproven beliefs in the BoK are OK. Relying on untested and unproven beliefs to accumulate knowledge is one of the biggest mistakes in the history of science. Any scientist must avoid such kind of mistake: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305768125_Description_summary_of_one_of_the_biggest_mistakes_researchers_must_avoid_or_never_repeat_at_any_cost

Best Regards,

Raju

Thesis Description & summary of one of the biggest mistakes researc...

Dear Dr. Vergne,

            You said: Scientists don't wait to validate all the hypotheses before use them, because we may lack the data or technology to do so.

                So, what you are saying is, we don’t have data or technology to prove or disprove this hypotheses at the root of existing software engineering paradigm: “The parts that are reusable are components for CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering)”.

                  I respectfully disagree. We have data and technology to prove that it is lie since 1990. My contention is that: No one ever tried to validate the hypotheses. The reason is that: The research community have been treating the hypotheses (or belief) as sacred self-evident fact that requires no proof. No software researcher ever said that it is an hypotheses (or belief).

                   No software researcher ever said that it is a belief or hypotheses (that needs validation, if and when data or technology available. If I am wrong, please show me such statement anywhere else in the world. I am not Citing myself. I am providing supporting evidence and reasoning for my statements. If you read them, you would not have made this kind of statements.

              The researchers in the 16th century treated the lie “the Earth is at center” is self-evident fact for eternity that requires no validation. Questioning the validity or requesting for proof was considered heresy. Today 21st century software researchers consider the definition “The parts that are reusable are components for CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering)” is self-evident fact for eternity that requires no validation. Questioning the validity or requesting for proof is considered heresy.

               No one ever admitted that it is a hypothesis. I am saying that it is a hypothesis that must be tested and validated. It is not heresy to question such untested hypothesis. Galileo was persecuted for questioning the validity of the so called self-evident sacred fact “the Earth is static at the center”.

            I have been attacked for questioning the validity of the so called self-evident sacred fact “The parts that are reusable are components for CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering)”. You said that it is a belief. Then I have right to question the belief.

The "Scientific Method" requires that such beliefs must be questioned. There is no exception to this rule. It is not heresy to question unproven beliefs.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Vergne,

               It is not wrong to make assumptions and rely on the assumptions, as long as it is well documented that that it is an assumption. But it is violation of “Scientific Method” to insist that such unproven and untested assumptions are self-evident facts for eternity.

                The state of software in its evolution passing through the state of crisis. Any new paradigm by nature is incommensurable by nature. Please read famous book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn. The first paragraph in this great synopsis says: https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/kuhnsyn.html

                A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs. These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice". The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs are firmly fixed in the student's mind. [Mistake-1] Scientists take great pains to defend the assumption that scientists know what the world is like... [Mistake-2] To this end, "normal science" will often suppress novelties which undermine its foundations.  [Mistake-3] Research is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education".

          Software researchers have been committing all the above three mistakes. At this stage of evolution of computer science, it is hard to publish decedent or heterodox opinions. So, I chose this forum to build awareness. Also to get better at presenting them by this kind of debates.

            There is nothing wrong in using “scientific method”, if it helps gain necessary knowledge for inventing components that can be plugged-in for addressing problems such as software crisis by eliminating infamous spaghetti code.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            What do you want? All the code is put openly in our website pioneer-soft.com. If you want the whole code, send me e-mail adders, I will email whole source code for you.

            The Airplane is not an icon, but it is an interactive GUI-component not much different from Pie-chart. Any one can download and use the library freely. I responded to your question in this thread: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_nature_such_as_essential_properties_of_physical_things_subject_to_ideological_choices_by_ignoring_objective_facts_and_reality#view=5941a05acbd5c221a17e4db1

            Let me give few more examples for 3D components and maps. SVG 3D Charts and Street Lights:

http://www.pioneer-soft.com/Bhalu%20Docs/Samples/OSMSmartCity/StreetLightDemo.html  (you can tilt the map by holding “Alt” button and moving mouse.

http://www.pioneer-soft.com/Bhalu%20Docs/Samples/OSMSmartCity/SmartCityDemo.html

            The source code is also provided with the patents: 7827527, 7840937, 8527943, 8392877, 8578329 and 9058177

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            The basic sciences were not science until they figured out and formulated “scientific method” in 17th century (that has been continuously improved ever since) and start acquiring knowledge using the “scientific method”.

           Today, each scientific discipline is nothing but BoK (Body Of Knowledge) acquired and accumulated by using the “scientific method”. It can't be scientific discipline, if the BoK is accumulated by blatantly violating scientific method.

             Dr. Peter, use you common sense. Untested and unproven assumptions are not facts. The 50 to 60 years old assumptions about components must be tested and validated. If the assumptions are flawed, all the BoK accumulated by relying on such flawed assumptions end up totally flawed and painting the geocentric paradox for software.

               The problem with you is that, you treat the assumptions are sacred commandments for eternity and that cannot be questions. What kind of scientist you are, if you can’t tolerate ideological diversity (or out of box thinking). You are considering that it is heresy to question the validity of such sacred tenants.

Dr. Verge, said:

> CBD/CBE

> you are right

> researchers are wrong

> how to make them understand their foolishness?

            Why are you so intolerant to decent and opposing point of views? Why are you defending unproven and untested 50 to 60 years old assumptions about components, as if they are sacred self-evident facts for eternity? Any real scientist would be shocked, if the whole BoK is rooted in untested myths. Only God can save computer science, if this attitude is shared by software research community (and kills ideological diversity and decent).

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            How does any GUI-component functions? You draw a GUI component by using primitive GUI elements such as, path, rect, line, circle or arc etc. Then you write code to detect events such as mouse-over or new-data to manipulate the attributes of the elements (e.g. to hide, show, rotate or move the group containing the image). There is a good tutorial on SVG at: http://tutorials.jenkov.com/svg/index.html

            Any GUI-component requires implementing code to draw the image using primitive GUI elements (e.g. path, rect, line, circle or arc etc.). Then implementing functions or code to manipulate the primitive GUI elements based on events such as user-events (e.g. mouse or keyboard), state-change such as new data or request from another component etc. Isn't it elementary. Don't you know this?

The same principle is used for charts such as Pie-chart or Bar-chart etc at: http://www.pioneer-soft.com/Bhalu%20Docs/Samples/BhaluCharts.html (Please click on an image to see the component). Use “View Source” to see that SVG and JavaScript code used to present each GUI component.

The Airplanes has functions to call server to get latest location at a given interval. Also has another function to call when user clicks on the Airplane to get latest information and requests the table to show the name and value pairs etc.

Please see figures in this page: http://www.pioneer-soft.com/bhaluVsOthers. The first figure shows using just two Java objects of reusable Java classes to present two GUI components.  You can use 200 Java objects of reusable Java classes to present 200 GUI components. You can implement this as Class, if you want this as a sub-component (e.g. by including an object instance of this class). In case of Airplanes, we can use for-loop to create each Java object to present each of the airplanes in the airspace.

Dr. Peter you said: There's no science in his argument, but nobody can argue with the proposition that engineers are often very poor scientists, particularly at the lower levels of the profession. One might as well complain that plumbers are poor scientists.

            The same argument could be made for the 16th century geocentric paradox filled with so many inconsistencies, contradictions and unpredictable retrograde motions etc. Now we know why the things were unpredictable and incomprehensible. You researchers gave us geocentric paradox and you expect us precisely predict the position of a planet 2 years from now? Shame on you :-).

            If you gave us Kepler's laws, we could predict the position with less than 1% error. A software engineer like me had to take up the job because researchers like you failed by sending us into a wild goose chase.

            How many universities offering PhDs in plumbing? All the universities in the world producing more PhDs in software than any other discipline. Dr. Peter, don’t be hypocrite. You have PhD, but not able to accept the most elementary principle of scientific method: Unproven and untested beliefs or assumptions are not self-evident facts for eternity.

May be in religions such as Islam, Christianity or Hinduism the religious tenants are treated as self-evident facts for eternity. If you treat Unproven and untested beliefs or assumptions are self-evident facts for eternity and questioning then is heresy, then there is no difference between science and religions.

P.S: If you like to see the code, you can see this decade old page (the components are not working) Code is at the bottom: http://www.real-software-components.com/API_RIA/technologies/demo-links/Atc3Cityes/air-trf-cont.html 

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Please see the code in this page (which I mentioned in the previous message): http://www.real-software-components.com/API_RIA/technologies/demo-links/Atc3Cityes/air-trf-cont.html

            Search for function implementation highlight: This function increases the size of the Airplane 3.6 times on mouse-over by scaling to 0.75, and restores old size by scaling to 0.2 on mouse-out.

            Below that function, you can see implementation show_info: This gets latest information and calls Table to display name and value pairs. You can see implementation of few more functions.

            If you search for “Section-3:”, you would see SVG code for presenting an airplane, which includes this line that uses few of these functions:

            Dr. Peter, the above things are thought in the first week of class on HTML5. I consider myself, leading expert in the world in this area (because I created hundreds of complex component hierarchies in year 2000 by assembling many replaceable components). I still have backup CDs for many such component hierarchies (and they work in IE compatibility mode). You are insulting me by asking such elementary questions. I am giving you my patent numbers.

              I filed my first patent in 2000, which was abandoned because it has limitations in communication code across components. I own patents for most advanced GUI technologies in the world. I was most sought after engineer in Silicon Valley, but I choose  to focus on this research since year 2001. I have more inventions for real CBD, for which I will file patents when I am successful in real-CBD effort.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Please keep in mind that the code was implemented in 2003 or 2004 in JavaScript and for Adobe’s SVG viewer plug-in. Please see the Java class that generates the code for presenting each Airplane by searching for “templatelib”.

            The following code in JSP/Servlet generates the HTML5 code for presenting each air plane:

            Airplane Al2 = new Airplane("AA486","SF37", 2, null);

            Al2.set_location (360, 180, 20);

            Al2.setCallBackName("flight_info_table.Display_info");

            Al2.setSmallMessages("SFO-to-LAX", "Radio Ch#27");

            Al2.CGM(pw, request);

            In an ATC application, the above code is put in for-loop to present each of the airplanes. If the airspace has 1000 airplanes, we need to create 1000 Java object instances by passing appropriate data.

            Each Java object generates SECTION-2 and SECTION-3. The SECTION-1 is generated only once. The number 63, indicates it is 63rd GUI-component in the application (that is generated using such reusable Java class). We append Unique-ID to avoid name conflicts. I have no control over the case, user may use for alphabets. So I have to make it case insensitive. Switch statement can’t do that.

             When I am trying to explain, what I meant by “assembly”. You asked me how I implement the reusable GUI-components. When I am showing the code, you are asking me to explain components that can be “assembled”.

==============             

              Don’t get confused between the following two roles. When you ask me a question, you need t mention, which shoe you are wearing. You put yourself in the shoes of Pioneer-soft's engineers: To create a reusable Java class for a presenting a data driven GUI component?

              You put yourself in the shoes of an engineer, who want to create a GUI-application using the reusable Java classes in Pioneer-soft’s GUI-API for building either (a) a GUI-application for web or (b) a Java class for a custom component (that needs to be plugged-in) containing few dozen GUI components.

===================

              The way it works is, provider of GUI-API such as Pioneer-soft provides few hundred reusable Java classes for presenting few hundred kinds of GUI-components such as charts, dials or maps etc. User of our GUI-API can uses the object instances of reusable Java classes to present various GUI-components such as Airplane or Pie-chart. Please how you can include a pie-chart at: http://www.pioneer-soft.com/Bhalu%20Docs/Samples/SampleDocHTMl/PieCharts/PS_PieChartWithGradient.html

             User of our GUI-API doesn’t see all the SVG/HTML5 or JavaScropt code. If you want to create component (that can be plugged-in) having 100 GUI components, you need to create 100 Java object instances using our GUI-API in the implementation of the class for the component.

              You can use an object instance of this Class to present this GUI-component, having 100 sub-GUI-components.  You can use 10 java object instances to present 10 GUI-components, having 100 sub-GUI-components. You can pass the 10 Java objects to an object instance of the GUI class for TAB-component to present each of them under a TAB-title. You may see code for using Java class for TAB-component at: http://www.pioneer-soft.com/containercomponents (select TAB component at left side column).

               You can use this Tab as a subcomponent for yet another component. In the component-based GUI-API, every thing is a GUI-component. For example, you can pass this TAB-component as Title for a Pie-chart (provided you leave sufficient space): http://www.pioneer-soft.com/Bhalu%20Docs/Samples/SampleDocHTMl/PieCharts/PS_PieChartWithGradient.html.

=================

In our CBD architecture, many things such as Titles, Popup Tool-tips are sub-components. You can pass a Java object instance for a GUI-component. It could be just a Text, or a container component presenting 100 charts (or the TAB presenting 10 components each tab-title presenting a GUI-component having 100 sub-GUI-components). Try to wrap your mind around such hierarchy. 

           Junior engineers working for me created such component hierarchies in year 2000 (may be not 100, but certainly a dozen sub-components in the component under each tab-title). If you can wrap your mind around this, you might understand why I closed profitable software consulting business to focus on this research full time.

===========

P.S: I am not as stupid as you think. But have to admit that I am stupid for overestimating the competence of software researchers to understand the reasoning, evidence and common sense (a.k.a. Scientific Method -- It is nothing but common sense way for investigating evidence with open mind for gaining wisdom and objective in sights).

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            You said, you want to see few more lines of code other than “new”. I presented what, I thing you asked (based on my understanding). OK, are you going to impression me for not using Switch?

            That code was meant for tutorial for fresh graduates, and most of them had no problem learning from it. They learned it because, their job depends on learning and creating reusable Java class for generating code for presenting GUI-components. Within few 6 to 8 weeks they were able to create reusable Java classes for presenting GUI-components such as Dials, Meters or Charts etc.

            You can’t learn because you don’t want to learn. I measure two things. How long, it would take a fresh software graduate to learn creating reusable Java class for generating code for presenting GUI-components.

            The other thing, I measure is, how long it would take a Java programmer to learn using reusable Java classes in out GUI-API. It is usually under a day. The documentation is given here. http://www.pioneer-soft.com/Bhalu%20Docs/Samples/BhaluCharts.html. Select image for required GUI-components to cut and paste the code below the component. You didn’t comment on my next message, which I am reproducing below.

             Scientific Method -- It is nothing but common sense processes and rules devised and has been perfected for investigating evidence with open mind for gaining wisdom and objective in sights.

             How hard it is to understand this simple thing: Relying on wrong clues, bad information or assumptions diverts any investigation into a wrong path?

              Scientific Method just helps us prevent such foolish things - Wasting our efforts on the pursuit of fool's errand.  Scientific Method was created in the 17th century from the valuable lessons learned from the scientific crisis and has been perfected ever since by many great philosophers to prevent such foolish mistakes.

              Wisdom and common sense doesn’t guarantee success but greatly increases chances for success by minimizing the number of mistakes and quickly realizing a mistake (if committed) to take necessary corrective steps.

              The objective of Scientific Method is to create common sense processes to structure, organize and investigate evidence and rules for apply reasoning to gain and pass-on knowledge.

           Only fools don't take steps to correct a mistake, when a mistake is committed - It is a sure way to failure.

=====

           I hope, you can understand, what is the purpose of scientific method. It is not my definition. It is what scientific method meant for.

             You think, it is heresy to use such great processes for gaining useful knowledge. If you think, such common sense  processes are not perfect, make suggestions to improve the processes and rules.

           There still may be room for improvements. Great philosophers such as Dr. Popper made compelling suggestions for improving the common sense processes.

===========

          Question: What is scientific method? Answer: A set of common sense processes and rules devised and have been perfected for gaining insights and wisdom by meticulously acquiring, organizing and investigating evidence and for apply sound reasoning in a structured manner for gaining and documenting knowledge.

                I have no idea, why you think it is heresy to use such great way (having proven track record) for gaining necessary knowledge. If you don’t like term “science” (in scientific method), you may give another name such as Newton’s Method (or Peter’s Method, in that case I prefer Raju’s Method :-).

              Many social sciences (e.g. political, economic or psychology etc.)  have been trying to use the great scientific method. There is nothing wrong, if you like to use scientific method for plumbing - It is a great way for gaining knowledge.

==============

            Scientific method is just a Tool. There is nothing wrong using such tool, if it can help. It is simple and straightforward to use “scientific method” for hard sciences, because hard sciences deal with objective things such as nature and properties of physical things such as animals, trees, chemicals, bacteria, viruses or components for CBD/CBE.

           It is harder and non-trivial to use “scientific method” for soft sciences, because social sciences deal with subjective things such love, greed, preferences, cultures, religions, human instincts and ideologies shaped by charismatic leaders,wars (e.g. winners or losers) or natural factors like drought.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Why are you evading your response to common sense method (a.k.a. Scientific Method) for acquiring knowledge? Why do you think, it is heresy to gain necessary knowledge such as the nature and essential properties of components for CBD/CBE, neurons and functioning of neurons in neural networks for real-AI?

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Again another evasive response. I am trying my best, but if it is not good enough for you, what can I do? I gave you the link, because the code was on the web. That web page still works, if you can install Adobe’s SVG viewer. Now SVG became part of HTML5, so we created new reusable Java classes for Airplane and other components. But code for the latest Java classes is not on the web. Being a self funded start-up, we have limited resources. We maintain GUI-API, but not sample applications in such private web-pages.

            You asked for more code, so I gave more code. Now you are complaining, I provided too much code, not using Switch or you didn’t like comments. I can never please you.

              Dr. Peter, Pioneer-soft's business model is services and providing reusable Java classes for custom GUI-components for real CBD. So, we train each of our engineers to create a reusable Java class for presenting GUI components of this complexity in about 3 days: http://www.pioneer-soft.com/SVG3DCharts (you can rotate the 3D charts)

            Dr. Vergne complains that I use too much custom jargon. It is kind of valid compliant. But the terminology is supposed to be incommensurable. It is the very nature of the paradigm shift (that requires gestalt shift by looking each part of the painting of our perception differently).

            It is impossible to explain heliocentric model by using geocentric jargon (i.e. in light of the background assumptions, climate or ecosystem of opinions and biases). No one could understand today’s jargon (e.g. facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, Snapchat, LinkdIn, FaceTime or Google etc.) 20 years ago.

          You should watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a2lisF4XGg. Does your salary depends on not understanding :-(?. You are presenting orthodox views and I am presenting decedent views. Understand the useful function a decedent serves. 

                Dr. Peter, did you teach your students about out of box thinking or questioning the status quo? If you didn’t, in my humble opinion, you are not a good teacher (because the best way to expand the boundaries of our knowledge is by questioning status quo).

              Many experts give lectures on importance of things like out of box thinking, questioning the status quo or subverting the dominant paradigm etc. If anyone dare or naïve to question the status quo by presenting sound counter evidence, the very same experts gang up and attack the person for questioning the status quo.

> you are right

> researchers are wrong

> how to make them understand their foolishness?

            The above comments simply implies, how dare you to question status quo. Questioning the status quo is not personal. No one should take it as an insult. Please recall the above, in this link: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_nature_such_as_essential_properties_of_physical_things_subject_to_ideological_choices_by_ignoring_objective_facts_and_reality#view=594280983d7f4b2cf15d5b51

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            I can’t understand what you want. I can’t read your mind. I asked you to mention, which shoe you are wearing when asking a question. Also, I am giving responses in the context of this thread. I can’t repeat every ting in previous messages.

“You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself.” … Galileo

            You should give credit to such wisdom of great people. No one can explain it to you, if you don’t want to find it within yourself (or if you feel it is in your best interest not learn).

            You are evading to respond my question, why you think it is heresy to use scientific method for gaining necessary knowledge for software engineering.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            To solve each problem, certain kind of knowledge is not only necessary but also essential. Most of the problems in the world cannot be solved without having the relevant or necessary knowledge. How could you paint an elephant, if you don’t know what is an elephant (e.g. a kind of tree, building or animal)?

            Putting efforts for gaining such knowledge for solving various such unsolved problems is known as a kind of research. Isn’t common sense: How could you find cures for infections without doing research to gain necessary knowledge about viruses or bacteria? No one can teach you, if you choose to forgo your common sense.

            We know for fact, design, development and engineering of large or complex one-of-a-kind products such as fully tested pre-production prototype of a next generation jet-fighter or spacecraft is not effected by so much spaghetti design/code. Gaining knowledge such as how they could avoid spaghetti code/design could lead to inventions for alleviating spaghetti code.

P.S: I already answered what is “assembly” imply, in 3rd page last but one message. But, I will try later.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            You are crossing basic decency in a debate. I am fed-up with you abusive behavior. There is no point in talking to someone, who wants to make trouble. The general statement is backed by examples.

            Even 12th grader understood the statement. Why don’t you try asking a 12th grader. If a 12th grader can understand the statement in light of the example, the problem is with you.

           I asked a 12th grader to read and explain it to me. Even he understood the statement. It is pure waste of time to debate with someone who is not intent of maintain good faith exchange of ideas. What is the problem with you? You behave as if you are the final judgment.

            I hired fresh graduates and they had understood the code. You claimed to write 4000 lines of code a day (faster than many typists), but have trouble understanding the simple code (even junior programmers had no problem understanding). Why don’t you ask a junior software engineer?

            I frequently bring in interns to see, how they could learn. It is called user validation. We can identify the areas they are having trouble to understand for improving the areas. Most of them have no problem creating a component class (that can be plugged-in) having 2 dozen GUI components. There is a huge unemployment in India, so I had no problem finding trainees looking for gaining experience.

                Your abusive attitude has no basis (and you gone too far). I was top software engineer making 4 times more than other software engineers in Silicon Valley in year 1996. I made more than enough money to comfortably retire. I have been doing this research since 2001 out of passion and intellectual curiosity. I secured patents for real software components and real CBD.

                  I don’t need you approval. A legal case will be filed against government funded research organizations for their gross negligence. It is just a mater of time. Unless you agree, I can’t make you a defendant. If you want to be a defendant, I am more than happy to make you a defendant. But I can make ReseracGate a defendant for allowing you back (after banning you).

             I used to debug and fix bugs in millions of lines of code, when I was working at Oracle corporation in early 1990s. For any good software engineer, there is no better document than the code. There may be ambiguity in English language, but there is no ambiguity in the software code. You are a bad engineer, if you can't understand the code. Go learn programming languages.

              The biggest problem in the world is with the stupid people having fanatic preconceived notions and half knowledge think they know every thing and they are the smartest in the world. They have nothing to show for it, so they come here and try to insult others to feel superior.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            I have 401k retirement plan to prove that I worked for Oracle as an employee. At that time I used C language. I may still have Job offer letter signed by Lorry Ellison. I was very poor at user interface. I am expert on networking code, particularly socket based interposes communications. I worked on projects such as SQL*Net and before that factory automation (that requires excessive high-speed socket based Inter Process Communications).

            I invented the reusable Java classes for GUI-components in 1999, because I didn’t want to write presentation code. I searched everywhere for reusable Java classes that generate code for presenting GUI-components (e.g. Pie-chart, line-chart or DHTML-Menus), if I input the application data using set-methods. I learned HTML, JavaScript and SVG starting 1999.

             Why should I write nearly same presentation code again and again to present multiple instances of a GUI-component (e.g. Pie-chart or Combo chart)? Even today such reusable Java classes for generating code for GUI components don’t exist. I end up creating lot more than I bargained for – A GUI-API that can create replaceable components classes (i.e. ability to implement mini-GUI-applications as Java classes, so that such components can be plugged-in by including an object instance of the Java class – This allowed up create complex component hierarchies).

           It changed my destiny for good or bad. I was making good money as an entrepreneur. Intellectual curiosity drove me to focus on this research. Now I have to face humiliations and insults from people like you. Don't think your assumptions are facts.

            I have very poor taste in UI. My wife doesn’t even let me buy my cloths. Look at our web-site, many people told me that I must hire professional web designer to make it look beautiful. I have to run my company on tight budget. I have no income since 2001. I have been investing lot of money for things like patents and travel to conferences. I need to invest couple of million for upcoming law suite against government funded research organizations.

            I got 4.0/4.0GPA in my M.S in Ohio University and top of my class. Almost every professor used to give me very complex problems out side of course work. In the final quarter, I was graduate assistant to the same classes I was taking. I wrote mini-Pascal compiler as my graduate project within 8 weeks. It helped me understand, how compilers work.

            There is no point in debating with you, because you can’t behave professionally in civilized manner. Until you are ready to engage in good faith exchange of ideas or views, stop responding on this thread. I never said, I am a UI expert. I said many times before that I am poor at UI and I tried to avoid UI programming. But I had to create GUI applications for communicating and managing multi-million dollars semiconductor equipment from KLA-Tencor and Advantest (as an employee).

            You have lot of ego. I used to have lot of ego. But my effort to expose the error in the geocentric paradox of software engineering is a humbling experience. You would become humble, if you try to accomplish some thing very big against fierce resistance.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dr. Peter,

                Let me keep it simple, so that even 12th grader can understand. I am sure you must have heard this saying: Necessity is mother of invention.  This saying also implies: Necessity is mother of research (to gain knowledge necessary for making the invention).

            Ask any researcher (if you know anyone), why he is doing research: Most likely he would say that, he is doing research to gain knowledge necessary to solve a problem or understand causes for a problem.

           For example, if you ever have done research in your life, why did you do the research? For example, what are the objectives or goals of the research? If you can’t understand this, ask a 12th grader to explain this.

P.S: Stop cherry picking and quoting sentences out of context. It is called deception. Dirty politicians and lawyers use such tactics to spin and confuse.

Good Bye,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Yes. You gave me hardest task in my life. I give up. I can’t please you. I had no problem getting 6 US patents on replaceable components. I think, I invented solutions for infamous software crisis. But I can’t understand, what you want.

                I had great pleasure of understanding things such as scientific method and philosophy of science (due to firsthand experiences) etc. But, it is beyond my abilities to know what you want. I give up.  I rarely give up. You won. Are you satisfied?

Good Bye,

Raju

Dr. Peter,

            Any communication is simple, if two people having share same background assumptions or climate of opinions (or subscribe to same dominant paradigm). But that is not the case, if one wants to subvert a dominant paradigm. Galilee wanted to show counter evidence such as Galileo moons using his 30 times more powerful telescope.

            I came to conclusion, that this kind of thing can be explained only in a face to face meeting by hiring 7 to 9 software researchers or professors for 2 to 3 days (i.e. 16 to 22 hours). None of them can’t say, I won’t see examples. Once they are satisfied, I need to hire 4 to 6 researchers part time to train them for 3 to 6 months (so that they can prepare proper presentations), before I file case on respected government funded research organizations.

            I need to prepare as much as I can, before I can start such effort. Even this may not be successful, but this along with high-intensity media campaign for gaining attention of research community has the best chance for success. But there is no guarantee. I was naïve that, if I could put all the evidence openly, I could find likeminded people, who share my intellectual curiosity and passion for expanding boundaries by exploring unexplored. For a while, I though you were one of them.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            The people subscribed to a dominant paradigm share the assumptions such as the Earth is at the center and epicycles etc. You should watch this kind of videos (just 15 minutes)  to have open mind for new ideas or ideologies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a2lisF4XGg Please watch just 12 minutes. Pleases .. Please .. Please

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Did you watch the first 12 minutes of the video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a2lisF4XGg.  I requested so many times.

               My problem is this: What is the best way to subvert a dominant paradigm (if it is flawed) having no decent and never been challenged?

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            I new those things. I read the Wiki page on Heliocentrism many times. Also few Indian astrologers proposed heliocentric model (e.g: http://cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/h/Heliocentrism.htm) . Even the researchers 2000 years ago explored other possibilities, which contradict the mainstream BoK (Body of Knowledge) or dominant paradigm.

             Pint is that: There was a dissent or heterodox view. Even in the dark ages, you can find few who were willing to change their opinion, if some can explain things such as the inability to detect stellar paradox or how could the Moon follow the Earth, if the Earth is moving.

            But 21st century software researchers feel, I am insulting them, if I contradict mainstream BoK (Body of Knowledge) or dominant paradigm. Today there is no dissent or heterodox view (e.g. to the mainstream ideology rooted in reuse oriented CBD/CBE model). Each of the dissent, heterodox view or counter evidence are being suppressed ruthlessly (as if it is heresy to question sacred beliefs).

            There is no exception to this rule: Relying on a flawed assumption (e.g. by believing that it is self-evident fact) for acquiring BoK diverts research efforts into a wrong path. The 16th century geocentric paradigm was result of relying on 2300 old flawed assumption (the Earth is at the center) for acquiring BoK until 16th century. It fundamentally altered our perception of reality, so much so, even the reality of heliocentric model perceived to be strange. Relying on the fact (the Sun is at the center) resulted in a radically different perception of reality.

            Only the God can save software engineering, if software researchers choose to ruthlessly suppress dissent, heterodox view or counter evidence to the dominant paradigm (that is rooted in sacred beliefs such as reusable software parts are components and CBD/CBE is using such so called components).

            There were always dissidents for any dominant paradigm. Only exception is existing CBD/CBE paradigm. No one ever even questioned the untested and unproven beliefs at the very root of the dominant paradigm. Any dissenting view is being crushed ruthlessly.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Existing CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) paradigm is rooted in “reuse oriented or based so called parts”, where the parts that are not designed to be assembled are erroneously defined as components. But parts that are not conducive to be assembled are not components.

                  I am proposing that CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) paradigm must be rooted in “assembly oriented or based parts”, where the parts must be designed and conducive to be plugged-in.

            The meaning of a term such as “assembling” must be understood in the context of related terminology such as “dis-assembling” and “components” for products (e.g. cars, computers or machinery) that are built by assembling the components (where the components can be disassembled form respective products).

            Dr. Peter, you can’t put conditions such as “assembly”. It is like putting condition, explain Heliocentric model without implying “the Earth is moving”. Parts that can’t be assembled are not components. So, no one can describe components or CBD without using the term “assembling”.

            Copernicus’s discovery questioned the validity of assumption “the Earth is at the center” at the root for then dominant geocentric paradigm. It started debate that eventually lead to the discovery of the Truth. The Truth could never be discovered, if no one questioned or doubted the validity of such untested flawed assumption.

         I want at least start debate on the validity of untested flawed assumptions at the root of software engineering, if I fail to expose the Truth. The Truth will eventually prevail, if I am successful in starting the debate about the validity of untested beliefs. A law suite costing US$2 to US$3 million is the price, we must pay to start the debate.

P.S: Dr. Peter, the name geocentric paradigm was given well after heliocentric paradigm was proposed (to differentiate between them). There was no name for the dominant paradigm in the 16th century. Likewise, there is no name for existing dominant paradigm. When a new paradigm enters in to the debate, the folks give names to distinguish between the paradigms. 

Best Regards,

Raju

 Truly, very interesting discussion! 

I like this too 

“The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”

― Albert Einstein

I also think  reading these discussion will make this discussion better. 

Best regards to all. 

http://forums.cardhunter.com/threads/debate-etiquette.6014/

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Please learn manners. Why are you attacking others? I informed you many things such as the 50 to 60 years old untested and unproven assumption “reusable parts are components” or “CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) is using such fake components.".

            If you are a scientist, it is your moral obligation to investigate such counter evidence. It is violation of common sense to argue such myths are self-evident facts for eternity. You are resorting to personal attacks to suppress the freedom of expression and Truth.

            Stop your abusive attitude. Don’t pretend that you don’t known what you are doing. Do you have any mental problem? I have a right to question untested and unproven myths. If you disagree that they are not assumptions, show me proof that they are facts. You have no right to behave the way you are doing here.

            I said, no one has proved or even tested the axiomatic assumptions at the root of existing CBD/CBE paradigm. If you disagree, it is you obligation to show the proof. No one can teach a dumb person. How can you teach calculus to 7 year old 2nd grade student?

              The 2300 years old flawed belief “the Earth is at center” is at the root of geocentric paradigm, because BoK (Body of Knowledge) for geocentric paradigm accumulated for 1800 years by relying on the belief “the Earth is at center”.

             It is common sense that: Any thing that has no proof must be treated as an assumption or belief. It is common sense that: If the belief is flawed, any BoK accumulated by relying on such flawed belief end up flawed. Who gave you PhD? Did you really have PhD?

            Likewise, the 50 to 60 years old beliefs such as “reusable software parts are components” are at the root of existing not yet named dominant paradigm, because BoK (Body of Knowledge) for existing dominant paradigm has been accumulated for 50 years by relying on such flawed beliefs.

Dr. Peter, you must learn Debate Etiquette: http://forums.cardhunter.com/threads/debate-etiquette.6014/

It says: Debates are healthy and wonderful things on forums (and in life), especially when they're focused on a search for truth, an exchange of ideas, and a willingness to learn rather than attempts to show superiority or flaunt one's "rightness." This is greatly helped by good debate etiquette. Now while there are many things that go into proper etiquette for debates, I want to touch on one.

           But you think, debate is to satisfy your ego and try to feel superior by insulting others. Many people drive expensive cars and expensive houses to feel they are great and important. I drive cheapest car (the best offer I got was US$1.6K) and live very frugal life.

          If you are satisfied with yourself, you don't need any one's approval. Few of my friends think I am frugal/cheap for not buying BMW and spending money on expensive things. I am spending 5 times more on things I like such as this research. They are doing businesses and making money. I choose to close profitable business to focus on this research.

            I don't care what they or you think. How does it matter? Insulting other's may give temporary gratification, but it could never gives you lasting satisfaction.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Do you agree that it is an error to rely on untested and unproven beliefs (by insisting that the beliefs are sacred self-evident facts for eternity) for accumulating knowledge? If you don’t agree, ask any real scientist and he would say that it is an error to conclude untested or unproven myths are self-evident facts for eternity. It is basic common sense. There is no ifs or buts.

         What would happen to each piece of the knowledge gained by relying on the beliefs, if the sacred beliefs later turned out to be fundamentally flawed?Any real scientist would say that it is basic common sense that each piece of knowledge (e.g. observation or epicycles) gained by relying on such flawed belief is no longer valid or reliable.

        How BoK (Body of Knowledge) for 21st century scientific discipline could be rooted in 50 to 60 year old flawed untested myths (that are being defended as if they are sacred)? Any BoK for a scientific discipline is said to be rooted in a belief or assumption, if the BoK is accumulated by relying on the belief or assumption. Large portion and chunks of the BoK ended up corrupted, if the beliefs are flawed.

           For example, the 16th century BoK for geocentric paradigm had been evolved for 1800 years by relying 2300 years old belief “the Earth is static at the center”. Relying on flawed belief (the Earth is at the center) resulted in corrupted BoK filed with inexplicable contradictions such as retrograde motions and epicycles etc. Existing software engineering paradigm has been evolving for past 50 years by relying on untested and unproven beliefs, where the beliefs can be easily proven to be flawed.

             How hard it is to prove reusable parts (e.g. ingredients such as steel, cement, plastic, silicon wafers or alloys used for making components for cars or computers) that can’t be either assembled or disassembled can not be components for CBD/CBE (Component Based Software Design, Development or Engineering)? It is not like proving that the Earth is moving at the speed of 30KM/sec around the Sun in17th century. Keep in mind that it is not hard to invent software parts that can be plugged-in.

         It took 100 years to expose the flawed beliefs at the root of geocentric paradigm, not because it is hard to prove, but because researchers refused to see the counter evidence. The 16th century researchers simply abdicated their moral and ethical obligations. They didn’t know that it is wrong to rely on untested and unproven belief (e.g. the Earth is static) by insisting the beliefs are self-evident facts for eternity. The common sense scientific method was created to prevent such mistakes.

         Any BoK accumulated by violating basic scientific method can’t be real science. Any BoK accumulated by employing scientific method can be a science. Software researchers like you refusing to use scientific method, even though it is possible to use scientific method for accumulating necessary BoK for CBD/CBE or AI etc., which deal with objective knowledge such as nature and properties of components for CBD and neurons for neural networks (while many soft sciences such as social sciences or psychology have been employing scientific method, even though they are dealing with highly subjective knowledge). 

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            The dispute is simple. Today, reusable software parts are defined as components for CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) for products (including software products). This is equivalent to the geocentric paradigm of the software engineering.

            The reality is (heliocentric paradigm of software engineering) that: CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) of a product is implementing large portion of features and functionality in a special kind of parts that can be plugged-in (or assembled), where the special kind of parts (that can be plugged-in or assembled) are known as components.

            If you want to discover the intended meaning of the term “assembling or plugging-in”, please observe quintessential CBD/CBE products such as cars, computers, cell phones, airplanes or machinery etc. The parts (in such products) that can be disassembled and re-assembled are referred to as components.

            Requesting for an opportunity to present evidence to prove the truth “the Sun is at the center” didn’t work for over 100 years. Many great ideas or inventions became successful not because of great articulation, but eventually each of them able to reach or find people who are predisposed to such ideas (perplexed by anomalies or contradictions and open to new ideas). I am sure many other great ideas might have died by failing to reach such people.

            Dr. Peter, any scientific revolution has supporters and distracters. I am more than happy to learn from my mistakes. But many experts insisted that it was a mistake to say the Truth “the Sun is at the center”. I don’t think it was a mistake. Likewise, it is not a mistake to say not violate “common sense rules of scientific method” (please see attached PDF).

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            I met a cousin yesterday, who is a highly respected medical doctor. He knew that I closed a profitable software consulting business 16 years ago to focus on research. He asked why I have been wasting my most productive years of my life and I have nothing to show for.

            I told him that I have been struggling to expose a 50 to 60 years-old flawed belief at the root of software engineering, which is: Reusable software parts are components and CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) for software is using such reusable software parts (i.e. so called software components).

            I also told him that I have been struggling to propose this truth for exposing the above error: Components are very special kind of parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled (or plugged-in) and any other kind of parts that can’t be assembled are not components. He was shocked and said, even he knew this and said isn’t it obvious to anyone (isn’t it common sense).

            He asked me: “You have been struggling for more than a decade, so you must have many supporters”. I told him that, I have zero supporters, in software research community (because my proposal contradicts their sacred belief: Reusable parts are components). I have many enemies, who want to silence me by using any and every dirty trick. In fact, couple of respected government funded research universities in India banned their researchers and professors from talking to me, when I tried to politely present counter evidence: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_so_many_experts_react_so_viciously_and_resort_to_insults_for_requesting_an_opportunity_to_demonstrate_counter_evidence_for_flawed_beliefs

            I am sure my cousin is still in disbelief. Who could believe such thing? Even I can’t believe that this kind of thing could happen in 21st century. I believe, world in general and larger scientific community (i.e. researchers of hard sciences) would be shocked, when I can afford to bring federal case against respected government funded research organizations (e.g. NSF.gov, NITRD.gov, CMU/SEI, DoE, DoD and DARPA etc.).

            My cousin had hard time believing me, but at the end he said, he agreed that it is a worthy cause for fighting for rest of my life (only if I am right - He implied to make sure that I am right). I have no single hardcore supporter (in the software research community, because it contradicts their strong belief “Reusable parts are components”) to the fact: Components are very special kind of parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled (or plugged-in) and any other kinds of parts that can’t be assembled are not components for CBD/CBE.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            I disagree with many exiting definitions or meanings (i.e. beliefs). There IS an existing meaning or definition for “components” in software, but I disagree with the exiting meaning. Likewise, there is an exiting meaning or belief for CBD/CBE for software, but I disagree with the exiting meaning.

            My contention is that: The exiting paradigm CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) is rooted in the flawed 50 to 60 years old definitions or belief such as CBD/CBE is using parts that are reusable.

            I believe that: The CBD/CBE paradigm must be rooted in reality and objective facts such as: CBD/CBE is using parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled (where the parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled are widely referred to or known as components).

            Dr. Peter, my understanding is that there is widespread debate about “The Fundamental Contradiction of the Special Relativity Theory”. No one real scientist would consider any physical evidence as fraud or crime. In fact, Einstein himself said: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

            Today, the sad state of computer science is that, providing any counter evidence to flawed beliefs is considered heresy or even fraud. Show me, if there is any debate that questions the validity of definitions for components, CBD/CBE or plug-in (or assembling).

           My goal is starting the debate. Truth would eventually prevail, if we can start such debate. But descending voices or views are ruthlessly suppressed in software, even more than many religions today. Isn’t it sad? Truth can never be discovered, if the descending voices or views suppressed ruthlessly.

            The theory of relativity is not untested and unproven belief (like the definitions for the components for achieving CBD). The theory of relativity was supported by experimental results, which in turn rigorously validated for many decades. Any one can falsify the theory of relativity by finding just sound counter evidence.

           Can I falsify the sacred belief (reusable parts are components) for the component by finding a single non-reusable part (i.e. custom designed to satisfy unique needs of just one product model) that is certainly a component for CBD?

           Only time this kind of thing happened in the history of science was, when descending voices or views that contradicted the sacred belief “the Earth is static at the center” were ruthlessly suppressed for 100 years in 16th century.

             Einstein was a clerk in a patent office. He became famous because he provided falsifiable proof for the Theory of Relativity, where the proof stood the test of time (no one could falsify the proof for many decades). On the other hand, the Theory “CBD/CBE is using reusable parts” was proposed nearly 50 years back by influential people in 1968 NATO software engineering conference based on best available information and knowledge.

              Please remember “the Earth is at the center” was propose nearly 2300 years ago by then influential philosophers (e.g. Plato and Aristotle etc.) based on best available information and knowledge.

Best Regards,

Raju