Dear Friends,
Only fake scientists feel offended, when a myth or baseless belief is questioned or challenged. Many researchers forgot, why any scientific or technological discipline end up in a crisis and what is a scientific revolution.
Any scientific discipline ends up in a crisis (by creating a paradox), when its pre-paradigmatic foundation comprises of flawed beliefs or myths. Any research efforts would be diverted into a wrong path, if the research efforts rely on flawed foundational or core principles (e.g. the Earth is at the centre). Any scientific or technological discipline having flawed core first principles in the theoretical foundation ends up in a crisis.
It results in a scientific revolution, when the research efforts are put on the right track by exposing the flawed beliefs (i.e. by finding accurate first principles and replacing the flawed first principles by the accurate first principles). When scientific research efforts are put on the right tracks (by replacing the flawed first principles by the accurate first principles), it solves the scientific crisis (hence it is a revolution).
Attached PDF explains the difference between a flawed dominant belief and flawed dominant paradigm. A dominant paradigm for scientific and technological discipline imply a huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) acquired and accumulated by theoretical research and countless practitioners rely on the BoK for practising their craft every day.
1. Subverting a dominant paradigm (of a scientific or technological discipline) is a quintessential example and very definition for a revolution, and
2. Any dominant paradigm can be and must be subverted, if its pre-paradigmatic foundation comprises of unproven core first principles that are flawed (e.g. by exposing such core first principles, which are flawed).
For example, perhaps astronomy is the largest scientific and technological discipline in 16th century, where the BoK for geocentric paradox had been acquired and accumulated for 1800 years by researchers, and thousands of astronomers relied on the BoK for practising their craft (e.g. for tracking time or seasons for farmers, Calendrical system, navigation and various applications for medieval astrology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_astrology etc.).
Incidentally, today computer science or software engineering is the largest engineering paradigm, which has acquired and accumulated huge BoK and have more practitioners of the craft (i.e. software engineers) than any other engineering discipline. Today, software engineering is in crisis due to flawed beliefs about so called components and CBD/CBE (Component Based Design and Engineering) in the foundation.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Raju, are you still at this? Let's say I wrote a function, or a subroutine, in a program I was working on last month, to solve a generic problem. Take a trivial example. I wrote a function to compute arcsines and arccosines directly, when the programming language I am using only computes arctangents. So, a nice little pair of functions, which solve problems I will run into in the future.
Does this qualify as an example of "component based design"? It seems to fit the description. I do this sort of thing all the time. Are you saying I should stop?
Dear Dr. Manfredi,
I have been doing this research for 20 years full-time (since I stumbled onto pluggable components in year 2000). Why do you think, I would give up as long as I am sure that I am on the right path.
All I am asking is the researchers to understand the objective reality of CBD/CBE (Component Based Engineering and/or Design) of the physical products.
All I am saying is that software products are not employing CBE/CBE, in the light of other engineering disciplines such as mechanical, aerospace or electronic engineering disciplines.
It is a fact that, each of the software application (i.e. an executable) is built as Monolith – It can’t be disassembled (as we can do a car, airplane or computer). You may use few reusable parts such as arcsines and arccosines, but still you are implementing custom code that is certainly more than 10k to millions of lines (in just one executable).
By using such libraries you may eliminate 90% of the code for each executable, but the remaining 10% code likely be more than 150K lines. My contention is that: Why not partition the 150K into 50 pluggable components and build the Monolith by plugging in the 50 pluggable components.
Keep in mind, as per CEO of Microsoft, each Ford car has more than 150 million lines of code. Satya Nadella speech at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_KxHhAIUXc about 150 million lines of code in Ford. It is not even self-driving car. He said that, the IT is going to be 14 trillion dollars by 2030.
Software bugs alone cost 1.7 trillion a year to world economy. Hundreds of people died just in two 737 Max crashes. The cost of F-35 ballooned into 1.5 trillion dollars and now is grounded (after two crashes) due to software issues: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/09/saving-the-world-from-code/540393/
Sir, I am not going stop defending the Truth, just because fake scientists annoyed or offended by the facts, such as ImportantFacts.pdf. Also have created 100s documents such as GreatestArtifact.pdf.
There are two main kinds of modularity: TwoDimensionsOfModularity.pdf, which doesn’t include modularity for inter changeability such as ANSI or ECMA standards for SQL or JavaScript. Even the loosely coupled modularity can be different kinds: LooselyCoupledModularity.pdf
Please try to understand the difference between a dominant paradigm and dominant belief: DominantBelief.pdf. It is amazing, how much you can learn, if you are passionate, determined and persistent.
I believe, I am a real scientists and trying my best by strictly adhering to the moral code of conduct for scientific research to uncover and uphold the Truth: RulesForScientificDiscourse.pdf. I am looking for real scientists and could not yet find one.
It is not hard to achieve this goal: ProofForNovelty.pdf
P.S: Software engineering can never become a real CBD/CBE paradigm as long as we can’t disassemble each such Monolith into pluggable components (e.g. to redesign, repair, or replace).
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Friends,
Let me continue previous email by stating that it is not hard to build software by assembling components as illustrated: ProofForNovelty.pdf
How many more people software research community want to be killed before accepting this obvious fact that any engineering paradigm can’t be a real CBD/CBE paradigm, if each of the products build by employing the paradigm can’t be disassembled into loosely coupled components, and the product can be rebuilt by reassembling the components?
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Manfredi,
I am in the process of filing a legal case against taxpayer funded organizations for gross negligence. Attached PDF is one such email, in preparation of the legal case.
It briefly explains what is meant by Component-based design and engineering. I intend no disrespect, but I am not going to give up my efforts just because such disruptive Truth offends fake scientists: RulesForScientificDiscourse.pdf
Best Regards,
Raju
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematical Sciences
- Graphs