Dear Friends,
In the context of disciplines for hard sciences or technologies there is no clarity between kinds of paradigm shifts. For example, the scientific discoveries of Newton such as universal gravity and Newtonian mechanics such as three laws of motion became foundation principles for substantial expansion of our BoK (Body of Knowledge). There is no doubt they are greatest scientific discoveries and testament to the extraordinary intelligence and genius, but they didn’t subvert BoK (Body of Knowledge) such as then prevailing heliocentric model created by earlier researchers such as Galileo and Kepler’s laws etc.
In fact, Newton relied on Kepler’s laws (particularly 3rd law) to discover the inverse square law, which stated that the force of attraction between any two things having mass is inversely proportional to the distance between them. There is no conflict between BoK existed before and new BoK added by the discoveries of Newton. For example, the three laws of Kepler described the reality of planetary orbits accurately (i.e. extremely close to objective reality, which we can measure even today). Kepler or Galileo made no attempt explain why planets are orbiting around the Sun. Of course, they said the planets are orbiting around the Sun, but no attempt was made to explain the reasons such as how could the planets stay in the orbits around the sun (or moons around respective planets).
Newton’s discoveries (and inventions such as calculus) provided the scientific explanation and proof for things such as how could the planets stay in the orbits. Hence, Newton’s discoveries of new fundamental principles didn’t replace or invalidated earlier BoK in the text books. But the discoveries added many new chapters to the text books. Can this be called a paradigm shift, if such discoveries expand the BoK by discovering unexplored frontiers?
Can it be a Kuhnian paradigm shift, if seminal discoveries of new fundamental principles substantially expand our BoK into uncharted areas? Can such expansion of the BoK be called paradigm shift, if such expansion doesn’t require invalidating substantial part of BoK of prevailing paradigm? A Kuhnian paradigm shift happens when newly discovered fundamental principles force re-validation of knowledge in the BoK of a scientific or technological discipline, and the re-validation results in fundamentally altered understanding of reality and a new BOK (that is radically different from earlier perception of reality and BOK).
Let me give another example: Newton discoveries only stated that there exists a force of attraction between any two bodies each having certain mass. But made no attempt to explain, why there is a force of attraction between any two bodies. Of course, many researchers later took up the challenge and Einstein succeeded in finding scientific explanation for the force of attraction between the bodies in terms of space and time (if my understanding is correct). There is no conflict between discoveries of Newton and Einstein. Many people see there is a conflict, but I see no conflict. Hence can it be a Kuhnian paradigm shift? No one doubting the extradentary intellect of Einstein, but what dominate paradigm his seminal discoveries subverted?
Each of the above new discoveries improved our BoK, so that we can make better predictions and measurements. In other words, If Kepler’s laws allow us to make predictions or measurements that are correct up to 2-digits, Newton’s discoveries helped us make predictions or measurements that are correct up to 3 to 5 digits; and Einstein’s discoveries helped us make predictions or measurements that are correct up to 5 to 9 digits.
Each of them are no doubt greatest discoveries of new fundamental principles in the history of mankind by opening vast new uncharted frontiers for expanding scientific knowledge, but could each such discovers be a Kuhnian paradigm shift? The discoveries of Einstein added more new chapters, but not invalidated the BoK in earlier text books, because there is no conflict between fundamental principles discovered by Einstein and Newton.
This kind of expansion of our BoK can be seen in each of the scientific disciplines: Our understanding of chemistry started with research to find difference between molecules and homogenous mixtures. Later researchers discovered that the molecules are made of atoms. Later researchers discovered that the atoms are made of elementary particles such as protons, electrons and neutrons. Now researchers have been working hard to discover the internal structure of elementary particles by using theories such as String Theory.
I have no doubt, the discovery of the internal structure of elementary particles (i.e. protons, electrons and neutrons) would be one of the greatest (if not the greatest) achievements of mankind, but can it be a Kuhnian paradigm shift? I am sure it requires extraordinary genius to make such discoveries, but, such discovery extremely unlikely to invalidate the existing BoK in existing text books, so don’t require re-writing and printing new text books. Of course, such discovery would add many more new chapters by creating a new set of fundamental principles for vastly expanding mankind’s BoK.
But can it be a Kuhnian paradigm shift, if it only adds new chapters without subverting prevailing dominant paradigm by invalidating large chunks of knowledge in the BoK for the dominant paradigm? If it is a paradigm shift (by creating new paradigm), there is another kind of paradigm shift, which subverts prevailing dominant paradigm by invalidating large chunks of knowledge in the BoK for the dominant paradigm. For example, the Copernicus’s discovery “the Sun is at the center” in 16th century questioned the fundamental principle (i.e. the Earth is static at the center) at the root of then dominant geocentric paradigm.
The geocentric paradigm had been evolving until 16th century and accumulated huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) for 1800 years by relying on 2300 years old belief (or fundamental principle) “the Earth is static at the center”. If this belief (or fundamental principle) is flawed, most of the knowledge accumulated by relying on the belief likely would be flawed or invalid. This kind of flawed knowledge accumulated for long enough duration or period fundamentally alters the perception of reality. For example, the truth “the Sun is at the center” offended the common sense of mainstream intelligentsia (e.g. community of researchers, experts and thought leaders) by questioning the validity of then deeply entrenched conventional wisdom.
As one can see, a Kuhnian paradigm shift requires subverting a prevailing dominant paradigm by exposing the flawed fundamental principles (or beliefs) that are very foundation of the dominant paradigm. Each of the mainstream researchers would be indoctrinated into prevailing dominant paradigm (by becoming a loyal disciple or advocate), so no one would ever question the flawed fundamental principles (or beliefs) that are very foundation of the dominant paradigm (to which he has been a devoted adherent follower).
Copernicus was a maverick and his discovery was considered to be fringe science for nearly 100 years by mainstream research community, except few exceptional mavericks such as Giordano Bruno, Kepler and Galileo. Only such mavericks could realize flawed fundamental principles (or beliefs) that are very foundation of a dominant paradigm and have courage to question them. Such discovery (that can expose flawed fundamental principles of a dominant paradigm) was always considered to be fringe science by mainstream research community and did everything in their power to silence such dissenting voices.
The mainstream intelligentsia would devotedly adhere to dominant paradigm and defend its fundament princesses as sacred tenets. Any discovery of new fundamental principles that could subvert a dominant paradigm would be considered fringe science by mainstream research community and do everything in their power to silence such dissenting voices. Such discovery of new principles would contradict and expose flawed fundamental principles at the foundation of a dominant paradigm. Any paradigm can be and must be subverted if and only if it is rooted in flawed fundamental principles.
A Kuhnian paradigm shift requires painting a radically different picture or perception of reality, where the new perception of reality is in clear contradiction with the picture or perception of reality painted by the BoK (Body of Knowledge) of prevailing dominant paradigm. For example, the 16th century discovery that “the Sun is at the center”, directly contradicted the 2300 years old fundamental principle “the Earth is static at the center”, which is very foundation for then dominant paradigm (since both and the Sun and Earth can’t be at the center same time). The discovery of Copernicus might be 100 miles from absolute truth, but it is 100 times better than then prevailing lie “the Earth is static at the center”.
It requires geniuses to make discoveries of new fundamental principles (e.g. universal gravity, theory of relativity or quantum theory etc). But it requires oddball mavericks to make discoveries of new fundamental principles that expose flawed dominant paradigm. Copernicus was a maverick, but I am sure he was not a genius (but the greatest scientific revolution in history is known as Copernican revolution). One can’t choose to be a genius, even if he works very hard. But one can choose to be a maverick by developing intellectual curiosity and outside of box thinking by working hard to find and question untested and unproven beliefs (i.e. fundamental principles) of existing dominant paradigm.
Many of us born with ordinary intellect can’t become geniuses by working very hard. But, I feel can become mavericks by perseverance and hard work. No one can become a maverick by sheepishly following mainstream intelligentsia, which insists that unanimity of bios is sacred or objective fact (e.g. even when there is no evidence to substantiate the so called objective fact). Any flawed dominant paradigm would be subverted only by a maverick, by mustering courage and perseverance to overcome fierce resistance and hostile personal attacks from mainstream intelligentsia (e.g. research community). Many fools in the mainstream intelligentsia try to humiliate you, while others try to convince you that you are unworthy by giving patronizing advice or condescending comments.
Is there any rule in scientific method stating that: It is heresy to question the validity of untested and unproven sacred beliefs having no basis in reality or fact? Many elitist snobs feel (even if they don’t say to you) and act as if you are unworthy. I don’t think there is any rule in scientific method that says, you must be affiliated to an elitist fraternity (e.g. member of a good old club of snobs) to become worthy, but the elitist snobs try to strictly enforce such unspoken rule. The elitist intelligentsia tries to find 1000 excuses to convince you that you are not worthy, but won’t try to find even single counterevidence to discredit you.
Keep in mind, in case of a flawed dominant paradigm, the mainstream intelligentsia practices pseudo science by blatantly violating proven basic scientific methods and processes, but feels and insists that the maverick (who is strictly and meticulously adhering to scientific method and process) is practicing pseudo science or fringe science. A maverick must ignore even brilliant bigoted elitist snobs in mainstream intelligentsia, who try to insult and humiliate the maverick (for questing flawed sacred beliefs) by resorting to personal attacks.
Even if many of us are not geniuses by birth, I feel we can become mavericks for changing the world by for ushering in a Kuhnian paradigm shift and scientific revolution. There is no need to be a genius to become a maverick for finding untested unproven flawed belief (i.e. basic principle) and exposing such lies by challenging the lies. Can’t we choose the path to become a maverick for example, by working hard to developing intellectual enquiry for questioning untested and unproven sacred beliefs in our conventional wisdom?
P.S: Kindly forgive me for this long message. But isn’t it worth it, if it makes few researchers to consider possibility of becoming mavericks. Also, worth it if it deters the elitist intelligentsia from being bigoted snobs by saying to mavericks that he is unworthy of questioning untested unproven sacred fundamental principles such as “the Earth is static at the center”; or “reusable software parts are components for CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Engineering and Building or Development) of software products (even if the parts can’t be assembled)”. I hope at least some of you enjoy this Halloween horror story.
If you are a genius, I feel, you can be far more potent researcher, like Max Planck, to find untested tacit fundamental principles by becoming a maverick. When his professor Philipp von Jolly advised Max Planck against going into physics, saying, "in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes”, Planck replied that “he did not wish to discover new things, but only to understand the known fundamentals of the field”. One can find untested or unproven fundamentals of the filed, when try to understand scientific justification, reasoning or investigating proof for the known fundamentals.
Happy Halloween. I hope few mavericks enjoy this horror story on Halloween
Best Regards,
Raju
Newton's understanding of gravity was as a fixed process subject to three dimensions, whereas Einstein theorised the involvement of time, heretofore seen as a symptom not as an activator. A thoroughly new perspective surely, leading on to Quantum Physics (which Einstein struggled with) and a contingent, random approach to reality. New paradigms, surely?
Dear Mr. Wilkin,
I am not saying, it is not a new paradigm that provides different new and previously unknown perspective to the objective reality. But it is not a Kuhnian paradigm shift that requires invalidating and redrawing our perception of reality by causing a gestalt shift.
Subverting a dominant paradigm requires gestalt shift in our perception of reality. My point is mainstream intelligentsia is unlikely to find flawed fundamental principles in the dominant paradigm to which they have been devoted adherents.
I feel, if such flawed fundamental principles exist in a dominant paradigm, only a maverick could find them. A person having ordinary intelligence can’t become a genius by hard work and perseverance, but I feel he can become a maverick by hard work and perseverance.
For example, the greatest invention in the history of engineering of large products for increase manual productivity is: A very special kind of parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled (and disassembled), where such special kind of parts is widely known as components. No part can be a component, if the part is not conducive to be assembled, in the context of CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Engineering and Development or Building) of any kind of product (e.g. cars, computers, cell-phones, TVs, ACs, airplanes, office equipment such as printers, machines or machinery for factory).
The existing software engineering paradigm have been evolving for past 50 years by relying on lies such as “software parts that are reusable are components (even though no known kind of so called software component is conducive to be assembled). We in software industry have been fooling ourselves that we already have been using components for CBSD/CBSE.
Hence, no one ever even tried to invent special kind of parts that can be assembled and disassembled, even though it is not hard to invent such wonderful kind of parts (that are greatest invention in the history of engineering for increasing manual product in designing and building large products).
If any one tried for inventing such special kind of parts, he must not have problem inventing such special kind of parts. I accidentally stumbled onto such kind of parts 16 years ago and doing full-time research passionately for past 16 years and secured many US patents.
When I try to present these facts, the elitist intelligentsia give million excuses, why I am not worthy of doing such research, but no one ever try to find flaw in my evidence and facts (that has been accumulated for past 14 years by my self and many engineers working for me).
I am sure I am not a genius, but I became a maverick by hard work and perseverance for 16 years. I know, many people who are more intelligent than me, but the problem is they refuse to question mainstream fundamental principles (e.g. beliefs), even when they knew those beliefs never been tested or validated.
For example, no one asked proof for this lie “the Earth is at the center”, but the truth “the Sun is at the center” faced unprecedented fierce resistance in the history of science. Likewise, no one asked proof for this lie ““software parts that are reusable are components (even though no known kind of so called software component is conducive to be assembled)”, but the fact about components would face unprecedented fierce resistance.
Becoming a maverick is a trait that can be acquired. I feel, every researcher and scientist must also be trained and try to be a maverick, so that, he can accomplish more that he could accomplish by using his intelligence and hard work alone.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Raju, I have no problem with much of what you write. Of course the world is subject to dominant paradigms, but how much of that is semantic in nature? I have, for example, been researching the medical profession for a number of years and found much of what they claim is not scientific in nature, but based on the dominance of an elite group. Which alone makes it interesting as it raises problems of social manipulation, constructions of belief, media-manipulated propaganda emanating from un-citiqued sources. Psychiatry is probably the worst culprit in this regard, almost constructing an alternative reality. As yet, my research is in its early stages, but to that degree, I understand your prognosis.
Dear Mr. Wilkin,
Often we deal with things that are not objective. In other cases objectivity is not possible for existing BoK (Body of Knowledge). But some cases objectivity is possible. Also, my contention is unanimity of a bias is not objectivity, as long as it is not tested and validated, particularly in case of hard sciences and technologies.
For example, we don't know the internal structure of a elementary particles (e.g. electrons and protons etc), but we are sure that the internal structure is an objective reality. Researchers have been employing various theories such as String Theory to discover the objective reality. Until the facts are discovered, we have to live with subjective theories. But they can't kill some one for disagreeing with such popular theories.
Likewise, objectivity is not possible in soft sciences such as social sciences or psychology or even in medical profession, when we don't know so many things. When out knowledge has so many gaps (e.g. in medical field), doctors can't be certain about best treatment. Different patients having same conditions react differently for same treatment, because there are many factors that are not known today.
For example, we don't know the internal structure a elementary particles (e.g. electrons and protons etc), but we are sure that the internal structure is an objective reality. Researchers have been employing various theories such as String Theory to discover the objective reality. Until the facts are discovered, we have to live with subjective theories. But they can't kill some one for disagreeing with such popular theories. Likewise, objectivity is not possible in soft sciences such as social sciences or psychology.
For example, we don't know the internal structure a elementary particles (e.g. electrons and protons etc), but we are sure that the internal structure is an objective reality. Researchers have been employing various theories such as String Theory to discover the objective reality. Until the facts are discovered, we have to live with subjective theories. But they can't kill some one for disagreeing with such popular theories. Likewise, objectivity is not possible in soft sciences such as social sciences or psychology.
Some times research community defends a lie as if the lie is inalienable self-evident fact for eternity, which can't be questioned. For example, until 16th century research community defended the lie "the Earth is static at the center", as if the lie is sacred self-evident fact for eternity. Could it be an objective fact, just because mankind unanimously believed that "the Earth is static at the center"? This is a lie because it had successfully prevented researchers from finding the fact "the Sun is at the center" for many hundreds of years.
In software, we have been suffering from such lies (i.e. unanimity of biases) about components and CBD/CBE for software, where the lies fundamentally altered our perception of reality so much, which has been successfully preventing researchers from discovering the facts about the components (i.e. very special kind of parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled).
If there is a dispute between two things (1) the Sun is at the center and (2) The Earth is at the center, which one is closer to the Truth? The elitist intelligentsia was wrong to kill Giordano Bruno and imprison Galileo for disagreeing with them. Giordano Bruno was killed because they felt he was not worthy to dispute the so called elitist intelligentsia. Is it acceptable? If they disagree, they could have falsified proof.
Likewise, if there is a dispute between two things (1) software parts that are designed for reuse are components for CBSD/CBSE, even though reusable parts can't be assembled, and (2) software parts that are designed and conducive assembled and disassembled are components, where each of the are components are custom designed to fit perfectly and perform optimally in just one product model (e.g. Camry), so not intended for reuse (e.g. Honda or Corolla).
There is a clear contradiction and dispute. Only one of them can be true. Today elitist software intelligentsia have been trying to convince the world that I am not worthy of contradicting their untested and unproven beliefs. I am not disputing with their definition, but my point is, you must also see other perspectives. It is impossible to achieve "building software products by using special kind of parts that are designed to be assembled and disassembled", which was one of the greatest inventions in the history of engineering for increasing manual productivity in building large and complex products.
Best Regards,
Raju
My concerns certainly involve the sanctioning of knowledge, how it is created, its belief and rationales for belief, and, in addition how it then is included within the framework of general perceptions. Knowledge thereby can be the production of an elite group and not have any objective basis other than that constructed further by the elite group. If its substantiation is conducted by the elite group, surely doubts must arise? If knowledge is embedded within culture and thereby resistant to paradigm change, then knowledge doesn't, and often it doesn't, conform to the ideal constructs we impose upon it but is simply contingent, unless proven significantly otherwise.
Dear Mr. Wilkin,
We, after all, are human beings having our own perception of reality influenced by preconceived notions, prejudice, biases and background assumptions or climate of opinions. The whole scientific method was created in 17th century by the very philosophers who played major role in scientific revolution, which has been perfected during past 350 years by great philosophers of science to particularly detect, measure and correct the imperfections in our knowledge.
Weather we admit or not, our knowledge is imperfect prone to many influences such as preconceived notions, prejudice and background assumptions or climate opinions. Having said that, I feel, it is wrong to put hard sciences and soft sciences in the same group, since it is often possible to achieve objectivity in case of hard sciences.
Also I agree elitism plays a major role in shaping our perception. I have to admit even for me, a Stanford professor would have more credibility than professor from an unknown college in India, even if the Indian professor is right. Why do we buy products that are endorsed by celebrities?
For example, if the same statement in the attached PDF is made by Google, IBM or Microsoft, the whole software research community pays attention and truth would comes out within few weeks. I have been struggling for many years, just to be told that I am not worthy. This is not the point.
My goal is encourage researchers to be mavericks, because they can’t become geniuses (if they are not genius by birth), but they can become mavericks by training and perseverance. Also to elitist intelligentsia to not judge a fact based on who discovered it, but by employing intellectual reasoning to determine the degree of validity (e.g. does it takes our knowledge closer to the truth and objective reality).
We live in imperfect world, so there is nothing wrong in pointing out any hidden imperfections or flaws. A known imperfection or flaw has a better chance to be alleviated than unknown imprecation. My goal is pointing out hidden imperfections.
Patronizing comments such as that you are not worthy is not a valid scientific argument to counter facts backed by evidence and reasoning for exposing untested unproven sacred belief such as "the Earth is static at the center" or "the software parts that are designed for reuse are components for achieving CBSD/CBSE, even if the reusable parts can't be assembled", which are fundamental principles of dominant paradigms.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Friends,
I realized that I have been facing couple of fundamental problems in subverting existing flawed dominant software engineering paradigm (i) in case of paradigm shift, the software intelligentsia feel offended or even insulted by facts (e.g. the Sun is at the centre, or no part can be a component, if the part can’t be assembled), and (ii) prejudice such as you are not worthy (e.g. not intelligent or famous enough) to dispute sacred untested or unproven beliefs (even if they don’t tell, I can sense from their body language and reactions or patronizing responses that is what they have been feeling).
I must admit that I am not a genius to make complex discoveries. I have been introspecting, how could I make such discovery. The discovery I made is very simple and obvious. Even brilliant people can’t understand the proofs for complex discoveries such as Einstein’s general relativity or Max Planck’s quantum theories even today.
Kindly refer to attached PDF to see that, my discovery is simple and obvious. Even tenth class student can understand the facts: No part can be a component, if the part is not conducive to be assembled (even the part has many other useful characteristics such as reuse or standardised etc.).
Any one can make such observation. Only exception is software intelligentsia brainwashed and indoctrinated into flawed 50 to 60 year-old fundamental principles such as CBD/CBE for software is using reusable software parts, even if the parts can’t be assembled.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" … William Shakespeare
The components are engineering marvels because they have very useful character (i.e. they are conducive to be assembled for elimination spaghetti code). Calling pigs as roses don’t make them smell as sweet. Calling roses as pigs don’t make them smell as bad as pigs.
We need to understand the valuable characteristics and leverage the characteristics to extract the value. Copernicus must had wanted to explore the possibility by putting Sun is at the center. He must had made better predictions for the positions of planets at a given moment of time in the future than geocentric model.
I realized by investigating the history, such simple and obvious discoveries to subvert dominant paradigm were not made by geniuses but by mavericks having ordinary intelligence such as Copernicus. Being a maverick, he had chosen not to blindly or sheepishly follow the beliefs of the intelligentsia. I would like to document my understanding, so I shared this publicly (hoping my experience might help others).
You don’t need to be a genius to find and expose untested flawed primitive fundamental principles at the foundation of our scientific knowledge. All you must do is acquire evidence with open mind and analyse the evidence with open mind.
Both Copernicus and Kepler made great contributions by meticulously observing the reality (by not succumbing to preconceived notions). We are all susceptible to prejudice, preconceived notions and prevailing climate of opinions (or background tacit assumptions). But I am sure we can overcome such weaknesses by accepting and working hard to addressing them.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
I am sure I told you 100 times, the purpose of components is to help make changes to each component at one-tenth cost and one-tenth time. Let me repeat one last time. Changing a component imply changing both internal functionality as well as it’s communication interfaces. Please see this code listing-1: http://www.real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html
Dr. Peter use your imagination. I can’t repeat it many more times and keep in mind I am trying to be brief. The internal functionality and features of each of the three components can be redesigned and tested individually free from spaghetti code.
It is possible to invent sophisticated CASE tools to help minimize the cost of changing, maintaining communication interfaces such as the one illustrated in FIG-3 at: http://www.real-software-components.com/CBD/Sample_SoA_CASE_tool.html (I said such as, which implies we can invent many such tools for maintaining communication interfaces and to automate many error prone tasks). I am sure, I called them software motherboards, and as usual you ridicule.
Kindly don’t make me more depressed than already I am in :-(. Please review attached PDF. It is very depressing to me that I spent more than a decade to discover obvious facts (e.g. components are very special kind of parts that can be assembled and disassembled; and CBD/CBE is using such very special kind of parts, which are widely known as components), where such facts are intuitively known to 99.67% of the population. The world population is 7.6 Billion. The software community must be less than 25 million (i.e. less than 0.33%).
You said: Every software engineer in their right senses prefers to do a little "partial evaluation" (i.e. hacking the innards and interface into shape for this specific purpose). It's software! Soft is easy to cut, shape and hack.
Dr. Peter, what is wrong with software intelligentsia :-). Why can't I hack little-by-little the internal features and functionality of each of the components in Listing-1? Why can't I evolve the communication interfaces little-by-little, if I employ such CASE-tools in FIG-3? In what way such CSE-Tool impedes your ability to evolve interfaces little-by-little? The purpose of the CASE-tool is to minimize the cost and complexity of changeling the interfaces.
Brilliant people like you can accomplish many times more, if you try to become a maverick. I told you before, it is a battle between good and evil :-). If you defend lies (e.g. CBD/CBE is using parts that are reusable), which means you are working for evil. You must switch to good side by becoming a maverick :-). Good side need smart people like you to start a revolution to overthrow evil empire :-( i.e. flawed dominant paradigm :-).
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Let me add more to my previous reply.
You said: Every software engineer in their right senses prefers to do a little "partial evaluation" (i.e. hacking the innards and interface into shape for this specific purpose). It's software! Soft is easy to cut, shape and hack.
This suggests that the designers of physical products don’t hack innards and interfaces of each of the components. It conveys an impression that the designers build perfect components first time and that their coupling interfaces fit perfectly and perform optimally. It is far from truth.
For example, I have been observing the design of this new product at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc5e5cYdshI They have been hacking innards and interfaces of each of the components for past 5 years. Please kindly pay attention to 15 seconds bit starting at 1 minute 55 seconds.
Let me paraphrase the 15 seconds bit, as I understood it: Essential purpose of the real component-based engineering is ability to look, feel and test each component independently to optimize individually for making each component as best as it can be. Periodically bring the components together to build product for making sure that (a) each of them properly collaborating with other parts, and (b) all the components are fulfilling their respective roles as intended for proper operation of the container product.
Do you think designers of new Airplane model such as Boeing Dream liner created perfect components first time without a hack innards and interfaces of each of the components? They create each of the components after modeling each of the components in CAD/3D software for many years. Even after that, they have to hack each of the physical components many times by building the physical airplane.
P.S: Please come and join the revolution to overthrow the evil empire :-(i.e. existing dominant software engineering paradigm:-). Please see attached PDF. We need to build a small army of mavericks, who don’t afraid to call a spade a spade. You are brilliant but your prejudice preventing you from comprehending the reality/facts.
Why does it cost hundreds of millions to design a new model car by each car maker, if the automakers don’t hack each of the components? I feel you are a good man (arrogant, little elitist and obnoxious but not a bad man. Do you want to stay on evil side:-). Keep in mind, every good researcher has a sacred duty to expose lies and evil effects of the lies.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
You are wrong. I never reversed my position on what a "component" should be. There are 6 granted US patents filed during past decade to prove it. I can’t change what is in the patent disclosure, so FBI/CBI/KGB or Scotland Yard can verify it (because it is on record). Also I didn’t change any thing in my web sites such as http://real-software-components.com/ and http://real-software-components.com/moredocs.html for many years.
Only difference may be now you are paying more attention to realize that is it red clubs, instead of thinking that it is black clubs when red club 4-card is shown. This is the famous example to illustrate paradigms. Your preconceived notion that clubs is black made you pensive that a red clubs as black club.
I am sure I said 1000 times that each component is custom designed to fit perfectly and perform optimally in just product model. Could you make such silly mistakes, if you have been working for 16 years on such simple obvious thing? Although we created thousands of component hierarchies, I have been using same examples for past 5 years to make the same point.
In every presentation or conversation, I tell at least dozen times that components are custom designed (so unlikely to be reusable) and at the end of the presentation everyone insists that I said reusable (or black box) components. It drives me crazy. It is like showing red clubs card of 4 and they insist that it is black clubs card. Please read the attached PDF that outlines twin challenges of software engineering, where reuse is already solved.
P.S: FBI, CBI or Scotland Yard don't like any revolution. They think all revolutions are bad, including revolution that subverted evil empire named geocentric paradigm. If you want to join rebels, don't tell them that you are joining rebels to subvert evil empire :-). If they are as good as they claim, they may have already hacked my computer and already knew what my future plans are :-(. I hope you are not FBI agent :-).
Let me repeat one more time: In the context of products such as cars, computers, machines or machinery for factories CBD/CBE of a product implies using very special kind of parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled/disassembled, where such very special kind of parts are widely referred to as components. The components are one of the greatest engineering inventions for increasing manual productivity, only because they can be assembled and disassembled.
Eyes are useful because they can see things. Ears are useful because they can hear sound. The eyes are more useful than ears but they can’t hear sounds. The components are useful because they can be assembled and disassembled. The reusable parts are certainly useful but they can’t be used as substitute for parts that can be assembled, as eyes are more useful but can’t be used for hearing things. See attached PDF below.
P.S: I just read Apple is betting on AR (Augmented Reality) to make Apple first company to reach Trillion-dollar market cap. Search for “apple augmented reality”. Such 3D software components could use our inventions reusable GUI components that can build replaceable (or pluggable) components. Google or Microsoft can catch up with Apple by using our GUI inventions for building and assembling pluggable components (only if they can accept the reality that the pluggable components are custom designed, so not intended and unlikely be reusable).
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
If an application left with no choice but to implement 100K lines of custom code (even after minimizing the custom code by using reusable parts to maximize reuse), isn’t it desirable to implement 90% of this 100,000 lines custom code in 20 to 25 parts that can be plugged-in? You can hack innards and interfaces of each part that can be unplugged individually outside of the product free from spaghetti code.
If answer is yes, you must join the rebel group to overthrow the evil empire :-). I provided a one-page summary to my previous message of 2 complimentary positions in the attached PDF Twin Challenges of software engineering research. The software engineering research have been focusing on reusable parts (by naming them to be components) for past 50 years.
I have been proposing to invent and use custom software parts that can be plugged-in. The parts that can be plugged-in (or assembled) are widely known as components. The only objective is minimizing the cost of redesigning these parts (that can be plugged-in), so certainly not intended for reuse. Each such custom pluggable part can be redesigned at a fraction of the cost and time.
To be plugged-in, each component must be designed to fit perfectly and perform optimally in the target application, so unlikely be readily reused in another product. To give you an analogy: Camry engine is custom designed to fit perfectly and perform optimally in Camry, so not intended for reuse in other models such as Corolla or Lexus. Hope you can see subtle differences.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
The difference is that: Any other kind of part that is not conducive to be assembled (or plugged-in) are not components for CBD/CBE of any product (including software product). Today no known kind of so called software components is designed and conducive to be assembled.
In the context of CBD/CBE of countless products (e.g. cars, computers, TVs, smart-phones or machines) we use every day, no part can be a component, if it is not conducive to be assembled. The CBD/CBE imply implementing large portion of features and functionality in special kind of parts that can be assembled.
Are you happy?
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Stop insisting that it is black clubs, when I am showing red clubs. Every software expert has a favorite definition for so called software components. Only the God has more mysterious descriptions than the components, as if no one ever even seen the components. For example: http://wiki.c2.com/?ComponentDefinition
Therefore, even CBDers don’t know what is their definition for components. And CBD is defined as using one or more kinds of such components. Two things I could not understand so far (i) the mysterious descriptions for the God and (ii) even more mysterious descriptions given to the components by the CBDers.
But one thing I know: None of the existing so called component is designed to be assembled. In the real world, a product can’t be a CBD/CBE product, if it doesn’t use parts that are conducive to be assembled.
I can’t validate the mysterious descriptions given to the God, because I never say the God. If you know the God, please ask him the structure of elementary partials (e.g. electrons or protons) for me. Is there another universe in the particles? Is our know universe is in such particle of another giant universe?
But I can validate the mysterious descriptions given to the components, because I can see the components. The components I see every day don’t fit none of the descriptions given by CBDers. You can’t explain mysterious epicycles rooted in a lie, but you can figure out planetary orbits in heliocentric model.
The CBDers trying to figure out mysterious epicycles (e.g. definitions of components). You can find many such fascinating debates (http://wiki.c2.com/?ComponentDefinition) to explain incomprehensible epicycles
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Don’t tell me your definition is definition of the CBDers. No two CBDers agree on a definition. Every one has their own understanding about the mysterious components. There is nothing concrete to compare or measure closeness to say one mysterious description (or epicycle) is better than another mysterious description (or epicycle).
Lets not get into such religious wars: My God/Component is better than your God/component. Just observe the components used in countless physical CBD/CBE products and say what you know or learn from the components.
For example, each and every one of them is conducive to be assembled. May be small percent of smaller or non-core components may be reuse across many product models. Almost none of the core-components are standardized. I don't think we need a separate definition for software components. So I created a description that defines the physical components.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
The CBDers have been trying to find or agree on most useful kind of parts, by calling each of their favorite of parts as components. They never paid attention to the objective reality or facts every one knew about physical components that are essential for CBD/CBD.
It is subjective based on preferences and based on context. It is kind of like selecting best actor in the world. There are thousands of actors in the world, where each actor has large fan base. Each fan base thinks their favorite actor is the best actor. If you go to one of those fan clubs and ask them, why they like the actor, no two people give same reason.
If you never seen Indian movies, you don’t even know the names of the actors. Most of them only used few kinds of useful parts, so have no idea about other kinds of useful parts. So, I don’t want to get in to such religious debates.
Answer to this question is objective reality: What is the nature and characteristics of physical components that are essential for CBD/CBE of physical products. Even if we can’t find a perfect answer, we knew there exist an absolute Truth.
If you don’t like my description or definitions, you can provide a description. We can compare and measure our answers to determine which one is closer to objective reality by employing scientific method. You hate scientific method, but do you know who hates scientific method? The people engage in religious debates such as my favorite actor is the best actor. Don’t drag me into such debate.
My goals are: We knew for a fact that the components are greatest invention in the history of engineering for increasing manual productivity of large products. Software can use such components because software engineers are also building large software products. We all know for fact such software components are not yet invented. We don’t even know why such components are very powerful.
These components are not replacement to other kinds of useful parts but complimentary. They provide new unexplored dimension for increasing productivity. The existing lies about so called software components and CBD/CBE is preventing researchers from exploring such new dimension.
I am only saying that don’t fool ourselves that we already achieved CBD/CBE. I am not against inventing other kinds of useful parts for increasing productivity, but against religious fanatic support that your God/actor/component is the only God/actor/component.
P.S: Your description is in clear contradiction to the reality everyone else (i.e. 99% of mankind) knew about physical components that are essential for achieving CBD/CBE of the physical products. For example, can you plug-in or assemble such components? Today no know kind of software components is designed to be assembled and/or disassembled.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Let me continue or add to my response above. There are many subjective things that influence your perception and preferences such as your experience in using certain kind of parts (e.g. people prefer to stick with parts they have used and familiar with), kinds of problems and domain (e.g. certain kinds of parts are better at addressing certain kind of problems or domains) etc.
Once culture, experiences and environment shapes subjective perception and preferences. I am biased towards Buddhism because I have been influenced by people practicing Buddhism when I was a boy. Of course, my natural instincts also play a major role.
The nature and characteristics of physical components for CBD/CBE are immutable objective reality. The scientific method is ideally suitable for getting closer and closer to the objective reality about any physical being (e.g. plants, animals or components) and physical phenomena (e.g. planetary orbits or CBD).
You can’t drive a car without engine. You can’t go anywhere in the car having no engine. Likewise, you can’t achieve CBD/CBE that can eliminate infamous spermatic code by using components that can’t be assembled and disassembled.
If you want to eliminate infamous spermatic code, you must build the product by using parts that can be assembled. Only known kind of parts that have proven track record for eliminating infamous spermatic code are special kind of parts that can be assembled and/or disassembled.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
I have been writing long email to provide comprehensive explanations and descriptions. You need to put your part of effort to understand things. Please recall earlier thread about convincing proof and valid proof. I have short valid proof but have no short convincing proofs. No one can convince a person, if he doesn’t want to be convinced.
You said: This isn't science but engineering.
I said many times, you can’t make valid engineering inventions by relying on flawed scientific or theoretical knowledge. The scientific or theoretical knowledge is the very foundation for engineering inventions.
You said: The CBDers like white-box "components" that are simple and easy to modify, adapt and perfect in situ, precisely for that reason!
Can you name better components that are simple and easy to modify, adapt and perfect in situ, than components that can be plugged-in and unplugged? The fact is, today no known kind of software components can be plugged-in and unplugged.
Without providing real example, your above statement is flawed and misleading. Can you show examples for such components and application build by assembling such components.
In case of CBD/CBE of a product, over 95% of the features and functionality of the product is implemented in such parts that are assembled (or plugged-in).
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Use your common sense. No one can help you, if you keep saying that it is black clubs when I have been showing red clubs.
One last time: The CBD/CBE of a product imply building the product by assembling very special kind of parts that are designed so that each of the special kind of part can be assembled (or plugged-in). I define software parts that can be assembled or plugged in as components.
You can’t assemble a part, if it is not conducive to be assembled. No known kind of software components are conducive to be assembled. The components that can be plugged-in require enabling mechanisms and processes such as software equivalent of a computer motherboard. Such software motherboard doesn’t exist today.
So my CBD requires (i) very special kind of parts that can be plugged-in and (ii) mechanisms for plugging in the very special kind of parts (that are by design can be plugged-in). These are two fundamental differences.
I don’t get it, why you have problem understanding such simple thing. Why do you love the evil empire :-( so much to pretend that you can’t understand such simple falsifiable facts? Keep defending the evil empire and you go down in the history as one of the tyrants guarded the evil empire :-).
People like you accept that it is red clubs (when shown red clubs) only under oath in the court of law and open glare and observation of philosophers of science and real scientists from basic sciences. I feel, I have no other option except dragging tax payer funded research organizations to courts.
Stop brainwashing and indoctrinating students into the geocentric paradox of software engineering. They end up wasting their lifetime efforts and hard work to make sense incomprehensible epicycles. If the error at the root of geocentric paradox were not yet exposed, all the greatest minds born during past 350 years could not have made any tangible contribution (except may be exposing the error).
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
I rest my case. People like you accept that it is red clubs (when shown red clubs) only under oath in the court of law and open glare and observation of philosophers of science and real scientists from basic sciences. I feel, I have no other option except dragging tax payer funded research organizations to courts. But I feel, you may even go to jail for lying under oath by insisting that it is black clubs :-).
I have been reading these (http://wiki.c2.com/?ComponentDefinition) and other descriptions. Not even a single software expert in the world try to consider objective reality we all know about the physical components and physical products built by assembling components. Are they writing a fiction story (having no basis in reality or fact) or trying to play the God for creating a utopian world?
If it is a fiction story, the worst fiction story I have ever read. Is it too much to ask to make simple observations: Just observe (without any preconceived notions and prejudice) the designing and building each of the physical components for each physical product and building the physical products by assembling the components?
I hope software researchers stop writing fiction stories :-), and start doing real research :-) by observing the reality and facts. If I fail, few more generations of young researchers would be brainwashed into believing such fiction stories is real science and scientific research is adding more to fiction stories by ignoring reality.
Do you know the difference between computer science and religions? The religions don’t pretend to be a real science rooted in reality and reasoning. Stop teaching such pure fiction stories as real science. There is difference between writing fiction stories and doing real scientific research.
You asked me what is the main difference: I have been struggling to find descriptions for components that is closer and closer to the objective reality by meticulously observing the components and each of the products built by assembling the components. It is called real science. You must try that by comparing your definition with the reality.
Is it hard: If you are shown red clubs, say that it is red clubs? Likewise, this is not hard: Just observe the components and if every large component in the world is assembled, then parts that can’t be assembled are not components. If every component in the world is reusable across product models and product families, then any part that is custom designed and not-intended for reuse can’t be a component (i.e. reuse or standardization is not a necessary condition).
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
I don’t mind if they call such parts (that cab be assembled) as components. But the problem is that such overwhelming noise from millions of sources masking the reality.
The software engineering can use parts that can be assembled. For example, if one need to build an application. Assume that the designers and engineers of this application left with no choice but implementing 100,000 lines of custom application code, even after leveraging every available mechanism such as reusable libraries, parts and frameworks.
Isn’t it desirable to implement this 100K lines of custom code in 20 to 30 components (of average size 4K lines), which can be plugged-in and unplugged. If you observe the design and engineering of prototype of a new physical product, this is exactly what the designers and engineers of almost every large physical product have been doing (when they are designing a new product or product model).
The innards and interfaces of each component would be hacked many times before the golden model is ready, where the golden model is used as reference for mass production. I know for fact, any application can be designed and built by using components that can be plugged-in. No one ever even attempted, but insist that it is impossible. How could any one say that it is impossible without even knowing what it is?
Unfortunately brilliant experts like you refuse to switch to good side :-(. I have no idea, how I could overcome such fierce resistance. Even if I struggle for weeks to convince an expert and succeed in brining to good side, he would be drawn back to the black hole having huge mass within few days. I cannot reassure him every minute to keep him on the right side.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Did you read this article: http://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scientific-journals-0414. Researchers are presenting papers for the sake of presenting papers to pad up their resumes. I have seen researchers attending sessions to know, how to please the reviewers to get their papers are accepted.
Researchers are not submitting papers to present something new or useful to present. The papers are accepted only if the papers reinforce the prejudice and preconceived notions of the reviewers. They have high prejudice towards Ivy League universities, so accept even garbage. They never accept a paper that contradicts their preconceived notions shaped by the geocentric paradox of software engineering.
Dr. Peter, the parts like EJB or COM are not self-contained and can’t be plugged-in. Such components are pre-built, custom designed and may be tested individually. So satisfy few conditions, but don’t satisfy 2 other conditions (i) they can’t be plugged-in (e.g. there is no software motherboard) and (ii) such components can’t achieve 90% modularization (i.e. implementing over 90% of the custom code of an application in parts that can be assembled).
Dr. Peter, you must always keep the end result and reality of CBD/CBE of physical products in your mind: Over 90% of the features and functionality is implemented in parts that are assembled. It is not hard to accomplish this for software products. All I am asking is put a sincere effort with open mind.
P.S: I made the same mistake of trying to fit and evolve existing components models. It only wasted lot of my time. In case of such Gestalt shift you can’t see both same time. You must trust, but verify.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
There are always agents try to bring change. There is no guarantee they would succeed, but they would try their best to bring the change. There are always agents determine to preserve status quo. They most likely succeed in short term due to inertia but can’t prevent or suppress Truth or facts forever. Many wiser people like you so full of doubts.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." ... Bertrand Russell
Elon Mask quote: "I think it's important to reason from first principles rather than by analogy. The normal way we conduct our lives is we reason by analogy. [With analogy] we are doing this because it's like something else that was done, or it is like what other people are doing. [With first principles] you boil things down to the most fundamental truths…and then reason up from there."
If you haven’t read this or watched this video, you must watch this: https://jamesclear.com/first-principles and https://lifehacker.com/use-elon-musks-first-principles-method-for-better-br-1476303603. You are asking me to analogy thinking that requires first principle thinking. I can only try to my best of my abilities to bring the change.
In the history of engineering of large products, no other thing increased manual productivity more than the very special parts that can be assembled and disassembled. The very special parts are widely known and/or referred to as components.
The CBD/CBE of a product implies building the product by assembling such very special kind of parts. You can’t drive a car having no wheels. Likewise, you can’t achieve CBD/CBE by assembling parts that can’t be assembled.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein?
P.S: The fake components created the problem. You are asking me use them to solve the problem.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
I was trying to be polite but not a politician. The frameworks you are talking about are for distributed systems, where each component is an independent excitable or application. Each of them may be running on different computers and communicate using sockets across computers. Are you so dumb?
Please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component-based_software_engineering
The software components are used in two different contexts and two kinds: (i) using components as parts to build a single executable, or (ii) each executable is treated as a component in a distributed environment, where components collaborate with each other using internet or intranet communication protocols for IPC (Inter Process Communications). The above belongs to former kind, while the below belongs to later kind.
You know I have been talking about building large executable by plugging in object instances. Why are you moving from one to other? The one you are talking about has no component hierarchy as illustrated in Listing-2 and FIG-1&FIG-2 at: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html .
Is it incomprehensible mystery: Each component may be built by assembling-subcomponents, where the subcomponents may be built by other assembling-subcomponents, and so on?
For example, the computers are built by using components such as CD-player, Hard Drive and Network card, where each of them is created by assembling subcomponents such as motors to spin disks, where the motors are inurn built by assembling smaller subcomponents, and so on.
Isn't it common sense. The CBD/CBE requires partitioning each of the complex components into subcomponents and built each component by assembling its subcomponents, and so on. Where is such component hierarchy in distributed environment?
P.S: Our GUI-API is designed to build such complex component hierarchies of any depth. Removing 3 lines associated with container component effectively removes all its subcomponents, without leaving any traces. Please see attached PDF for difference.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Why are you nit-picking. Such components collaborate using some kind of IPC (inter Process Communication) using TCP/IP sockets or something equivalent. I copied and highlighted a paragraph from wiki, which clearly differentiates between two kinds.
On the other hand, two components in same executable communicate with each other by calling each other’s functions. Did you read the attached PDF? It clearly summarizes the difference between existing CBDers and my CBD.
Also, you ignored another important point – Component hierarchy. There is no component hierarchy in case of peer-to-peer communication between distributed executables.
There is an interesting dialogue in the movie Wall Street:
The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.
Greed is right.
Greed works.
Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.
And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. :-(in this case malfunctioning software research community :-)
Dr. Peter, let me see, if greed works. Normally you never give good faith answer, but I am requesting a good faith answer this time for a change. If you are a big Silicon Valley venture capitalist, would you invest in this business deal: I need US$3.4 million to make research community aware of the error at the root of software engineering paradigm. I have 6 patents and ideas for filing 1 or 2 more patents.
We could make billion, if we become successful in subverting existing dominant paradigm by licensing our patents and CASE-tools for enabling true CBE/CBE. Even if we fail, after investing US$3.4 million, I am sure our patents for CASE-tools and pluggable GUI components would be worth at least US$5 million. So there is a very little chance, you lose your investment due to liquidation preference.
P.S: Any good VC never say no immediately, as long as he sees such potential. He may say no, after gathering all the necessary information and necessary clarifications.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Why are you playing dumb? Microsoft Word requires implementing few million lines of code in a single executable. You can’t build MS-Word by using COM, ActiveX components.
There are millions of software engineers building and maintaining large executables having tens to hundreds of thousands of lines of code in single executable.
Even such COM, EJB components require implementing many lines of communication code, so you can’t plug-in such stubs used in clients to communicate with the remote COM or EJB components. Do I need teach software basics?
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
You must become spokesperson for a political party. You are good at diverting discussion. Compilers, Operating systems, self-driving cars or expert systems require implementing large executables.
We, real software engineers, create complex software (not just little COM, EJB kind of components). Kids building kid software can't understand this until they grownup.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Tell me the size of C++ compiler. Tell me the size of Linux OS, iOS etc.?
How many line of MS-Word code that is not implemented in COM or ActiveX?
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
What is the size of the biggest executable (in lines of code) for MS-Word not including the code implemented for COM or ActiveX components?
Keep in mind I worked for Oracle Corporation in Redwood City headquarters when Oracle 7.1 was released. There are many large executables of size few hundred thousands of lines of code.
Every company I worked for created many large executables of size in hundreds thousands of lines of code. Each such application may have many ancillary smaller executables. For example, the CityATC uses reusable GUI class for Airplane component, where the code in the GUI class is not counted in the custom code implemented for the CityATC.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Question: What is the greatest invention or thing known to mankind that has proven track record of increasing manual productivity more than any other thing in designing and developing large or complex products?
Answer: A very special kind of parts that can be assembled and disassembled.
Humans have five senses: organs to see, an organ to taste, an organ to smell, organs to hear, and organ to touch. By far the most important organs of sense are the organs to see (or for sight). We perceive more than 67% of all impressions by means of our sight.
The organs used for sight (or to see) are widely known as eyes. Likewise, the very special kinds of parts that can be assembled and disassembled are widely known as components. The thing that matter is not names but the importance of the function it performs.
Why the eyes are the best sensory organ: The eyes are most important because they can be useful for sight? Why the components best engineering invention: The components are useful because they can be assembled and disassembled?
Dr. Peter, it is not hard to invent such very special kind of software parts that can be assembled and disassembled. I have US-patents for such software parts. No one ever tried or attempted to invent such parts that can be used for building large or complex software products.
In fact, software experts like you feel it is heresy (e.g. offensive, insulting or disrespectful), even if I mention that it is possible to invent such very special kind of parts. Mere mention of such facts or polite request to see evidence is perceived as heresy.
Importance of anything is measured based on the usefulness of the function the thing serves. The "special kind of parts that can be ambled and disassembled" serve very useful function by substantially increase the degree of each of these factors (i) division of labor, (ii) specialization and (iii) automation; where increasing degree of each of these factors proven to increase engineering productivity.
P.S: If you say, software products are already built by assembling such special kind of parts, you must back by evidence, for example, by showing me an example. The widespread use of things and mechanisms such as dies, forgings, jigs, , casting molds or lathe machines are evidence that mankind invited interchangeable components. Likewise, real components for achieving real CBD/CBE require wide spread use of enabling things and mechanisms.
It was a daunting task to manually chiseling identical parts having deviation no more than few microns. But enabling invention of jigs and casting molds or dies made it a trivial task to mass produce identical parts. Likewise, it is not hard to invent enabling inventions for enabling real CBD/CBE. You can’t make such inventions without even trying by calling such suggestions is blasphemy. Many such simple things must be in place, widely known and used. Today no one even heard of such trivial things.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
You can wake up a person sleeping. But you can’t wake a person, who is pretending to be sleeping. You can explain things, who really doesn’t understand things but want to understand. You can’t explain things to people, who doesn’t want to know or pretend to be not understand.
I clearly defined what is meant by “assembling” 100 times by using examples such as Listing-1 and Listing-2 at: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html. Such plugging in must not require implementing any more communication code in the application. The need for implanting communication code in the application to allow collaboration between the components can be eliminated by using tools and mechanisms such as FIG-3 at: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/Sample_SoA_CASE_tool.html.
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
The best way to teach human beings is by using examples. For example, we teach kids in elementary schools about animals, birds or flowers by showing one or two pictures. You can’t teach AI by showing couple of pictures.
You said: Actually, you never seem to remember what you've been told either. Human beings need only be told a thing once. But round and round you go asserting that you have "defined" things, when you're told you haven't.
So are you not a human being? I have been saying that it is a card of red clubs, and you have been keep saying it is a card of black clubs. Pay attention to the reality. Don’t make your preconceived notions and prejudice alter your perception of the reality.
Even kids know what is meant by assembling in the context of designing and developing products such as cars, computers, cell-phones, machines or factory machines. I said 100 times that our discussion in this context. I also told you 99.67% of mankind has no problem seeing spade as a spade.
When I was student, teachers thought me about structures by using examples such as a record for Employee. Likewise, employee class was used as an example to teach objects etc.
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
I have a grand son is 2 years 3 months old. My daughter is teaching him about things by showing pictures. It is very cute, when he says dog, when a dog picture is shown. Or when he says rose, when a rose is shown. You should play with kids. They have no preconceived notions. You should try first principle approach suggested by Elon Musk.
The kinds at that age have no preconceived notions and don’t afraid to call a spade a spade. Some times they surprise us by saying reality we can’t see or observe because of our biases and prejudices. If you pay attention, you would know he is right and we are wrong. Our prejudice make us blind to reality that is otherwise obvious to toddlers. They are not yet brainwashed by fiction or dominant paradigm.
The kinds at that age have no preconceived notions and don’t afraid to call a spade a spade. Some times they surprise us by saying reality we can’t see or observe because of our biases and prejudices. If you pay attention, you would know he is right and we are wrong. Our prejudice make us blind to reality that is otherwise obvious to toddlers. They are not yet brainwashed by fiction or dominant paradigm.
I don’t know about you, but I was taught prime numbers by giving examples such as 17, 23 and 29 etc. I was told they are prime number because, each of them is not divisible by any other number except 1 (and itself). I try to find, if any other can divide the numbers to make sure they are prime numbers. I was asked to find prime numbers that is not less than 49. You should try to find similar kind of plugable components or CASE-tools. You can prove me wrong, if you can find such CASE-tool or plugable components.
Dr. Peter, don’t you understand what is meant by the term context. Meaning of many terms depend on context in which each of the term is used. Even kids know the meaning of the term “assembling” in the context of moving assembly line. A asked many of them to make sure they knew. Just because you can’t call a spade a spade, don’t assume no one else can call a spade a spade.
Dr. Peter, knowledge can be used in two ways. One is for teaching others. To do that you need to understand their perspective and preconceived notions. The other is for advancing our knowledge and for making useful inventions by relying on the knowledge. The later don’t require understanding every biased opinion.
In fact, trying to learn every prejudice is detrimental to advancing our knowledge. Many great things accomplished because, no one told them that is risky. In Silicon Valley, young people become successful because they are foolish enough to take risks and not burdened by nay-Sayers like you. They take on the journey with blind faith. Many fail, but few succeed.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
The problem with you is that, you feel you are always right. You are in capable of seeing others perspectives.
You said: So, ask him if a dingo is a dog. Or if a wolf is. What about the thylacine "wolf"? The african painted dog/wolf?
It would be fun and cute. I will ask my daughter to do that and record it for me or on FaceTime. They live in Los Altos, CA. So, I can’t do that. I wish I could see his cute confusing reactions. May be I can learn how human brain works.
You are talking like a mathematician, who only deals with abstract ideas. The real scientists deal with physical reality. They have to observe the physical reality without any preconceived notions.
This may be the problem. The software emerged from being a sub discipline of mathematics. This kind of problem could not have happened, if software is originated from hard sciences.
You said: No, I was not "taught" prime numbers "by example". A prime number is any that is only divisible exactly by itself and 1. Do your examples go as far as 113?
Maybe you are different. We in India learned from prime numbers from examples. Examples and practice of finding prime numbers give deeper understanding and insights.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
You can’t explain insights and wisdom. One musty gain insights and wisdom by experiences. Mankind scenes nearly 75% of the reality using eyes. Both engineers and scientist paint mental picture of reality by using examples.
You can’t learn swimming or cycling by read books. You can’t express such tacit knowledge or wisdom.
I got 4.0/4.0 GPA because I could express. There I need to show that I know answer, they are looking for. It is like preaching to converted. I could make many successful sales, when I was running a company, because I could express.
Subverting a dominant parading is like preaching to convert devoted follower of a religion (i.e. dominant paradigm) from his favourite religion to a new religion (new paradigm), he never heard and has contradictory beliefs that are perceived to be heresy in his favorite religion.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Let me know how you did it, if you have subverted a dominant paradigm. Your opinion has no basis, if you never done it.
Don't fool yourself that you can express by preaching to already converted. They already converted, so you may just re-enforced their prejudice.
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
I never said I am good at articulating counter intuitive reality because it is in clear contradiction to perceived reality. Also I am open to follow a suggestion, if I haven’t tried the given suggestion. As you know, I have been trying for many years and I tried almost every thing. But, I am reluctant to follow suggestions that were tried and failed.
You never experienced vicious attacks from egoistic near criminal so called researchers. Did you read my earlier question? I went to IIIT-Hyderabad to attend their showcasing of their research efforts on an invitation. I politely requested them for an opportunity to present my inventions of components that can be assembled and disassembled. They asked me to send an email for giving me an opportunity to present to few software engineering professors.
I was banned for making a polite request without any provocation. Only contact I had was through emails. So all the communications are extremely polite and yet I was banned. I wanted to sue them, but these corrupt criminals are not even worth suing: 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. These people I learned latter were corrupt running private training institutes using campus rooms rent free by charging huge fees. So they are nothing more than a den of thieves. These people need each other to loot taxpayer funds. I invited them to counter this post.
This is typical example, not an exception. Let me give you another example. In 2013, my classmate MM Pallam Raju was powerful central cabinet minister for HRD (Human Resource Development), which funds all the Universities. I asked him for help and he invited me to New Delhi to stay in his home. He arranged a meeting with few IIT-Delhi computer science professors.
Within few minutes of the presentation, few of them started ambushing me by resorting to personal attacks. They gave counter examples, which are blatant lies. For example, when I try to give an example of enabling inventions for 19th century Interchangeable components, one of them said Swiss watch makers have been using Interchangeable components and casting dies since 17th century.
Even a simple Google search proves that it was a lie, but how can you show in middle of a 50 minutes presentation. I got a feeling that I am a pray under attack by a wolf pack. These people I learned latter were also corrupt. They could not find high paying jobs in multinational software companies. Many of them do side businesses by leveraging their positions.
Why do you think, I don’t want to try every promising possibility. But I am not going to try things, if I failed or know that it won’t work. You would know this, only if you also have similar experiences. It may work for someone else with different talents or he may get lucky. I have to make my decisions based on my strengths and weaknesses. Some weaknesses I could overcome, by hard work, but other weaknesses are hard to overcome.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Don’t you pay attention? Are you incapable of understanding simple statements?
I said: For example, when I try to give an example of enabling inventions for 19th century Interchangeable components, one of them said Swiss watch makers have been using Interchangeable components and casting dies since 17th century.
Show me proof that enabling things such as casting dies invented and used in 17th century by watch makers. Mass production existed for thousands of years, but not enabling inventions to make interchangeable parts such as jigs, casting dies or molds etc.
Likewise, enabling inventions for plugable components includes things such as GUI-technologies that allow building plugable components and software motherboard having sockets to plug-in the plugable components. Isn’t common sense, you can’t achieve CBD, if you can’t build components?
The fact that “the Sun is at the center” is a counter intuitive reality in 16th century. The fact the “the parts that can be assembled and disassembled is known as components” is counter intuitive reality for software experts. You acted no different than those corrupt criminals in 2004 resorting to personal attacks.
Even the best craftsman can’t make parts that are identical in shape and size, with division of no more than few microns. Hence the enabling inventions include things such as jigs, casting dies or molds etc. What is the use of invention of Cars, if there are no roads and petrol bunks?
If some one says, he is using interchangeable parts, I want to know how he is making identical parts. Use your common sense. If he has no clue, how to make identical interchangeable parts, isn’t it proof that he is not using interchangeable parts.
Such enabling inventions transformed then fledging United States into a net exporter of goods and intellectual property from net importer of goods and intellectual property (within few decades during mid 19th century). Even the best craftsmen can’t mass produce identical parts. Bur a casting mold can mass-produce thousands of identical parts.
It allowed workers work more with their heads than hands, resulting in innovations for creating intellectual property. You need to study the history more carefully.
Dr. Peter, don’t expose you half knowing without paying attention. The corruption at IIIT-Hyderabad and IIT-Delhi will be exposed when I sue the US government funded research organizations. Those people have been getting paid by tax payers. They supposed to do research, but not side businesses. Only corrupt people support such corrupt people. Don’t behave like a member of a wolf pack.
Bye,
Raju
Dr. Peter,
Mass production doesn’t imply interchangeable components were invented. Inventions such as Ford’s moving assembly line and interchangeable parts substantially increased productivity of mass production. They were invented to fulfill mankind’s desire to mass-produce at less cost. Is it hard to understand? Mankind has been traveling for centuries and wanted mass transportation. Trains and Airplanes were enabling inventions to fulfill desire for faster and/or cheaper mass transportation. Please read this:
The wiki said: however, it was not until the introduction of machine tools and techniques to produce interchangeable parts were developed in the mid 19th century that modern mass production was possible.
I called this enabling inventions: (i.e. introduction of machine tools and techniques to produce interchangeable parts were developed in the mid 19th century) .
Mankind dreamt of travel by machines for long distance controlled air travel. Of course, hot air or hydrogen balloons might have invented earlier. But enabling inventions were not widespread until mid 20th century.
The wiki said: By 1808, annual production from the 45 machines had reached 130,000 blocks and some of the equipment was still in operation as late as the mid-twentieth century.[5][6] Mass production techniques were also used to rather limited extent to make clocks and watches, and to make small arms, though parts were usually non-interchangeable
It clearly said that the parts were non-interchangeable. The watch makers were not even early adopters of enabling inventions such as casting dies. I thing, early adopter was Singer sewing machine.
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Please study the history. You don’t need that parts are interchangeable. Each component can be grinded and filled to fit perfectly with other parts. If a part in musket was broken, they would send the musket to smith or master cractsman. He would pick a rough part to make custom part to fit perfectly by doing things such as grinding it and filling it.
Please study the history. You don’t need that parts are interchangeable. Each component can be grinded and filled to fit perfectly with other parts. If a part in musket was broken, they would send the musket to smith or master craftsman. He would pick a rough part to make custom part to fit perfectly by doing things such as grinding it and filling it.
It is kind of like what we in software doing today to add 1600 lines of custom code for CityATC to add this component to the application (see attached PDF). Not exactly equivalent but roughly similar.
In case of interchangeable parts: If part-A in a musket is broken. One can use other parts of the musket to replace broken parts in other muskets in the battle filed. If the trigger in Billy the kid’s gun was broken, he can place to get it by post for new trigger to replace the old trigger (without any grinding and filling).
Before the introduction of the interchangeable parts, one need to send the musket to an expert smith to make new part that fits perfectly to replace the broken part. Please stop exposing your ignorance and incompetence. Study the history. Are you too dumb to understand the enabling inventions such as casting dies or molds?
The invention of interchangeable components eliminated substantial part of accidentals costs and also substantially increased automation. You need expert craftsman to make high precision part by hand. But one casting die or mold can create 1000 high precision parts at fraction of the cost.
You said: The IIIT (not IIIT but IIT Delhi) person's remark seems justified to me, one way or another!
You are a fool, if you think that if a part in your great great grand father’s Swish watch was broken he could place an order for a new part to replace the broken part without any grinding or filing. Your great grandfather must send the watch to a craftsman, where he picks a rough part to make it fit to replace broken part.
Don’t you understand the meaning of enabling inventions? That is, the inventions (e.g. jigs, forgings, casting molds or dies) that made simpler to mass produce identical interchangeable parts? They increased automations and also substantially reduced accidental costs. Do you know the difference between essential complexity and accidental complexity?
If the goal or desire was building identical interchangeable components, then the enabling inventions are things such as jigs, forgings, casting molds or dies. You can’t achieve your goal of building identical interchangeable components without such enabling inventions. My research and patents are focused on enabling inventions for creating plugable components for building software by plugging in such components.
I said 100 times about enabling inventions and you keep saying some gibberish. Having an idea or desire is different from actually having enabling inventions to fulfill the desire. Can't you understand this simple point?
P.S: Using American system of manufacturing implies creating interchangeable parts using enabling inventions for using them. Pierre-Frédéric Ingold and Georges-Auguste Léschot must have adopted American system based on timeframe and one of their experience in Boston area - The hotbed of Interchangeable components. The people in Boston had expertise in enabling inventions for American system, while Ingold had expertise in designing Watches.
Your blind support of such den of thieves is irritating. You would understand my anger, if you were ambushed by a wolf pack using lies by resorting to personal attacks. Here I have a chance to refute and expose your ignorance. But I had no such opportunity when I am alone under attack from den of thieves.
Don’t be dumb. Many researchers have desire to cure Cancer and succeeded to certain degree by employing costly painful treatments. They could cure some cases and prolong life for other cases. But they are far from complete eradication of Cancer. But, you can’t compare this with an invention of a vaccine that can eradicate certain kinds of Cancer.
The enabling inventions know then as American system such as casting dies or molds were perfect solution for mass producing interchangeable parts. They fulfilled the desire. Is it too hard to understand the difference between having a desire without good solutions and having a desire along with good solutions?
Modularization of custom code implemented for complex software for making it simpler to redesign each of the modules is a desire. The way for fulfilling the desire is implementing over 95% of the custom code in plugable modules, where each module can be unplugged to redesign and test it individually out side of the product free from spaghetti code.
Do you use blogs as reference? What evidence you have that it is accurate? Even the blog said: Despite the Swiss history of quality, if it wasn’t for the American optimised production process being implemented in Switzerland it’s very likely that Switzerland would not be the watchmaking powerhouse we know them to be today.
I invited them many times to enter open debate. They refused because it exposes their ignorance, lies, corruption and incompetence. If they think they were right, why not participate in a open debate. I like you because, you engage in open debate.
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Please read the history of interchangeable components. Not your opinions or my opinion. The parts for muskets were not interchangeable. Each part is custom made to fit a give musket. A part form a musket unlikely to fit another musket, unless you are lucky. You can’t order a part from manufacture.
You need to also study the history about accuracy of the muskets. They were always inaccurate. The bullet missed by few feet. So when you shoot, a person, it may hit another person 3 feet away.
Dr. Peter, I did extensive investigation of history for past 15 years for every thing related to industrial engineering factors. I can’t remember source for each little bit of information. But it is the history. I verified this from multiple sources to ascertain and to gain insights.
Dr. Peter, the term interchangeable is well defined. Don’t try to confuse me as you did for terms components or assembling. Elli Whitney demonstrated the concept or proposal for interchangeable parts as this: He disassembled 10 muskets into parts. Then he randomly picked parts to re-assemble 10 muskets. (some thing like this. You can find exact demo by searching. There may be different versions to this effect). That is, you can take a part from a musket and use in any other musket of same make or model.
You said: Perhaps your problem is that you haven't defined what you mean by "Interchangable" too!
A part is not interchangeable, if you need to grind or fill the part to make it fit. For example, if there are 100K Accords of a given model, you can take a part from any accord and use it in any other Accord. Don't nitpick on this by finding exceptions and outliers. Why are you trying hard to protect Evil?
You said: For guns the situation is the same. The barrels are all the same bore so they can take the same ammo, which in turn have to be all the same size ... otherwise guns wouldn't work. And so on.
Get the facts right. What kind of gibberish you are saying? If the bore is 12MM, then any bullet of size less than 10MM fits the bore. The bullet may miss the target by 5 feet, if the bullet is less than 8MM. Also in the movies of US independence (e.g. The Patriot), there were no bullets. They pore Gun powder and then put lead-ball before firing the Gun.
Bye,
Raju
Dr. Peter,
The parts of watches were not interchangeable. It is well documented historical fact. Stop speculating. The watchmakers may be employing mass production techniques to form parts by the 1790s or 1800s.
How does it imply, they were using interchangeable components? They may be creating parts to approximate sizes manually and employing master craftsmen to do slight tinkering on the assembly line.
Don’t divert topic from enabling inventions (e.g. jigs, casting dies or molds) for mass producing interchangeable components.
Bye,
Raju
Dr. Peter,
Such finer differences between mass production and enabling inventions such as dies may be OK for you, but not OK for me. For example, assembly line was not the invention of Ford. Assembly lines existed many decades before the introduction of moving assembly line by Ford. The Moving assembly line increased manual productivity by 5 to 7 folds. How it was accomplished such huge productivity gains of 5 to 7 folds is still mystery to me. But I can’t deny the well documented fact.
I tried to understand the reasons to gain insights, by feeling that, such wisdom could help me in improving enabling inventions for CBD/CBE for software. I need to do more research and would do when time permits. I am searching for more information such as books or research papers on Ford’s moving assembly line
Use your common sense. To make apple juice, you need apples. You need components (i.e. parts that can be assembled and disassembled) for CBD/CBE. No part can be a component, if it can’t be assembled and disassembled in the context of CBD/CBE.
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
That is the problem with you. The fact is Ford’s moving assembly line reduced number of man hours required for assembling each car by 80%. Pay attention.
It is not increasing productivity or doubling the productivity, if 10 workers can do a task in 10 days, but if you can do it in 5 days by employing 25 workers.
It can’t decrease cost of each item. Ford needed one-fifth hours to make each car. So he doubled the salaries, reduced working hours and still reduced cost per each car by 50% or more (there is no reduction in cost of material, so all the savings came from increasing productivity)
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Such factors may improve 2 to 3 folds, but 7 fold increase. I hope I can see the dynamics and mechanisms at play. I need to spend time to gain insights to translate it for software engineering to eliminate any bottler necks or accidental waste.
Sorry, I am not going to give a lecture on things I am not sure about. To make the things work so smoothly, there must be many small enabling mechanisms and inventions that were not there before. I am interested grasping the subtle enabling mechanisms and inventions that made such profound change.
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
When you can understand Moving assembly line, why you have trouble understanding enabling inventions such as casting molds or dies etc.?
Now you know dynamics and mechanisms of moving assembly line please make suggestions for how it can be translated into software engineering? What kind of enabling inventions are necessary for achieving such goals?
Please suggest me, how I can improve my CBD/CBE, where 97% of the custom code of any application can be implemented in custom plugable parts? Assume we already achieved our goal of implementing where 97% of the custom code of any application can be implemented in custom plugable parts. Can we further improve this by inventing tools to aid and assist in achieving your suggested outcome?
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Did you understand the meaning for interchangeable components, which was explained using an example Accord model? So you have no problem understanding terms when explained using examples.
Assume I sued you and judge punished you to provide explanation to those terms (or go to jail), how would you express the terms?
You are talking about parallelism. Do you know what are the things that ideal fro parallelism? Lets go to our good old example listing-1 at: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html
Each component class can be designed tested individually in parallel. Each component class can be refined and tested individually in parallel free from spaghetti code outside of the product. Now I need an invention, which can eliminate implementing any communication code in the application or container component for allowing collaboration between the components.
One way to eliminate need for such communication code is using a generic Object outlined in FIG-3 at: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/Sample_SoA_CASE_tool.html (code for each component contains necessary communication code for establishing necessary communication links to allow collaboration between the components).
Now you express this, keeping in mind the order of the judge. Plugging-in implies including a component by including a class definition without any additional requirement for implementing any kind of communication code. We need to have enabling mechanism for each component to find necessary services to collaborate with each other without any need for implementing more communication code.
Dr. Peter, the way it works is, you state desires and invent enabling tools and mechanisms to fulfill the desire. The objective in 17th century was mass-producing identical interchangeable components. The enabling 18th century invention was things such as jigs, casting dies or molds etc. Kapish?
Dr. Peter, in my view the First Principle thinking in this context is, finding desires and trying to find solutions from ground up without any preconceived notions or influenced by analogies of existing software paradigm.
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
I am exhausted. Our debate turned into a boring soap opera. Let’s continue in my next question thread. Neither of us going anywhere. I am sure, I am not going to give up until exposing the errors in the foundation principles of existing software engineering paradigm in general and CBD/CBE in particular.
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
One thing I learned is, I need to hire 2 to 3 researchers or professors as part time advisors and make them understand our BoK by spending few weeks fulltime. Then ask them to convince judges and jury, when this end up in a court.
In my company, I ask junior most engineers joined few months earlier to train new recruits in our GUI-technologies such as creating a reusable GUI classes for presenting each of the GUI components.
The problems they faced in learning would be fresh in their minds, so junior most engineers can be more receptive for doubts of a laymen. We lose laymen perspective after spending more than a decade. Also, the junior most engineers gain more insights by teaching fresh graduates or laymen.
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
You said: Unfortunately, you cannot comunicate it in the first place (I believe you do not have anything concrete at all, just a dislike of your education).
Just because you are incompetent to understand doesn’t imply I do not have anything concrete.
I closed profitable software exports business 15 years ago to focus on this research, because I say junior programmers were creating more complex GUI application than practical to any one else by plugging in few dozen large GUI components of size CityATC (City Air Traffic Control)
You said: After some tinkering with the line rate and other factors, Sorensen and his cohorts achieved results that were probably startling even to them.
I had similar startling experience 15 years ago. I not that dumb to waste millions of dollars and 15 years of my time, if I don’t have some thing concrete. Why I am justifying this to you, who is incompetent or ignorant to understand the terms “assembling” or “plugged-in” or Interchangeable components.
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Elli Whitney wasted all his life trying to convince ignorant (sorry professional) people like you about interchangeable components. I am sure Ford must had wasted all his life trying to explain fools (so called professionals), if he hadn’t own a car factory.
Ford just captured the market share. Many so called professionals had to accepted explanation when become unemployed.
If I had enough money or large software company, I don’t need to waste my time on trying to convince fools. I could focus on capturing market share. Kepler and Galileo failed to explain to fools all their lives.
You can't even imagine possible enabling inventions, which I am sure put most of the software consulting companies based in India out of business, if they don't adopt. Success of interchangeable components is result of inventions of enabling things such as casting dies or molds etc. Success of Ford's moving assembly line required many small things you summarized.
“Science advances one funeral at a time.” … Max Planck
What you can do, when so called experts keep saying that it is black clubs, when you keep showing them card of red clubs. I asked million times, can you show me a single Class definition for a GUI component (presenting a dozen or more charts) anywhere in the world.
You are deliberately ignoring evidence. There is killer holding smoking gun, and you are blind to the evidence. People like you have no choice but to see accept the evidence and facts, only when dragged to courts.
Dr. Peter, why are you acting so stupid? What is COM to do with this? Read this: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms680573(v=vs.85).aspx It says:
COM is a platform-independent, distributed, object-oriented system for creating binary software components that can interact. COM is the foundation technology for Microsoft's OLE (compound documents) and ActiveX (Internet-enabled components) technologies.
And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_Object_Model says: Component Object Model (COM) is a binary-interface standard for software components introduced by Microsoft in 1993. It is used to enable inter-process communication object creation in a large range of programming languages.
I told you that I am trying to address different problem. That is not building distributed, object-oriented system with inter process communications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component-based_software_engineering says: The software components are used in two different contexts and two kinds: (i) using components as parts to build a single executable, or (ii) each executable is treated as a component in a distributed environment, where components collaborate with each other using internet or intranet communication protocols for IPC (Inter Process Communications). The above belongs to former kind, while the below belongs to later kind.
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Why are you diverting topic? Where they are using “socket”, “plug” or “assembly”? Such terms are rarely used and in context not related to main topic. I searched many places such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_Object_Model
Are you talking about TCP/IP sockets? I explained before. Can you build large software such as C++ compiler using COM objects?
How many times I have to tell you this. There are so many differences. For example, computer uses components such as hard-drive, CD-player or Network-card, where each component uses other sub-components such as motors to spin disks, where motors contain sub-components and so on.
You can't explain Heliocentric model as an extension to the geocentric model. Subverting a paradigm is not same as creating a new paradigm that extended our BoK in to new unexplored dimension.
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Wrong again. You are imposing your prejudice and preconceived notions. You did the same thing by insisting that I must pick another name such as wudgets for components (i.e. special kind of parts that are designer and/or conducive to be assembled).
Now you are doing the same to steer me into the wrong path of COM. Who is using COM any more? Very few people can understand COM. World moved on to REST and HTTP or Web Sockets. You are asking me to learn some thing I and everyone else forgot long ago to teach in terms of COM to people who don’t know COM. No thanks.
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
I hope you read the Wiki paragraph stating that they are completely two different unrelated kinds:
The software components are used in two different contexts and two kinds: (i) using components as parts to build a single executable, or (ii) each executable is treated as a component in a distributed environment, where components collaborate with each other using internet or intranet communication protocols for IPC (Inter Process Communications). The above belongs to former kind, while the below belongs to later kind.
Let me give you an analogy. We, from India, called Indians. And the native people in the USA also called Indians. I am trying to explain our culture and you are insisting that I must learn Native American Indian culture and explain our culture using culture of Native American Indian culture as analogy to establish the fact that there exists another kind of Indians in Asia.
Just because you never heard Indians in Asia don’t imply we don’t exist. Likewise, you never heard about software components (i.e. parts that can be assembled and disassembled) don’t imply such software component can’t exist.
Figuratively speaking furniture such as TVs, ACs, Refrigerator, Beds and Tables-chairs are components of a house. But are they literally components? Figuratively speaking applications such as MS-Word, XL, PPT or PDF are software components in our PC.
Such applications use OLX/COM to collaborate with each other. But such applications or executable may be figuratively or metaphorically referred to as components but they are not literally components. On the other hand, the listing-1 in this page assembling 3 real sub-components to build a container component (so that it can be used as subcomponent) and listing-2 shows the subcomponent of LandMarks, where Theatres was built by assembling other such-components and so on: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html (See FIG-1)
As TVs or ACs are not literally sub-components of the house (plugged in to power supply of the house), such applications are not literally sub-components of a PC. You want to learn culture of one kind of Indians, you can’t insist using another culture as reference or analogy.
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Are you dumb or pretend to be dumb? The code base for each application is stored in exclusive files under a folder (and sub-folders). You can redesign and test each application (i.e. a COM component) individually free from spaghetti code (implemented for other applications or COM components).
But you can’t do that for components in Listing-1 and listing-2, if you can’t implement code for each component in a Class definition. If you are implementing 25K lines or more in an executable, it is desirable to implement this custom code in multiple pluggable components as illustrated in Listing-1 and listing-2.
If there is no need for implementing executable larger than 25K lines of custom code, then pluggable components may not be useful. When you figure out a way to use COM type components of size 5K lines to build complex applications such as compliers, OS, PDF or RDBMS, them we don’t need pluggable components.
You said:
Same questions! What has being "plugged in to power supply of the house" to do with anything? How does that affect things in your view?
I can't explain every thing. Read artificial dependencies and real dependencies in each of the couplings.
Bye,
Raju
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Software