Is mankind’s knowledge about
animals or birds subjective? Is mankind’s knowledge such as many kinds of birds
can fly or lay eggs, subjective? Are these kinds of facts subjective: large
animals breathe and have blood, or trees produce oxygen? What is the true
purpose of scientific research? Isn’t the purpose of science to discover and
disseminate such knowledge of objective facts? When mankind’s knowledge
contains millions of such objective facts about physical beings and physical
phenomena, why can’t we find objective facts about the physical functional
components and CBD (Component Based Design) of physical products?
Why experts and researchers
treat that it is a blasphemy to ask them to discover objective facts about the
quintessential nature of the large physical functional components (e.g.
essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known
physical functional component) and essential aspects uniquely and universally
shared by any CBD (Component Based Design) for one of a kind physical products
such as building a working prototype of a next generation Jet-fighter, nuclear
powered locomotive engine or spacecraft?
I am not asking to believe me.
I am only asking to discover the objective facts. If anyone thinks he is a
scientist or researcher, then it is his sacred duty to peruse the hidden
truths. Discovering these truths expose one of the “fundamental errors” of
computer science and software engineering, this already costed more than a
trillion to world economy and continues to cost 100s of billions each year.
Whatever I am saying feel
subjective to most experts or researchers, because they have been brainwashed
for decades by unsubstantiated notions and concepts such as any kind of useful
parts (e.g. having a given set of usefully properties or conform to any kind of
so called component model) is a kind of software components. After a decade of
my passionate research and hands on experience in creating large component
hierarchies, it is not subjective to me.
Few experts ridiculed me for
calling the baseless definitions for so called software components is a
“fundamental error”. I respectfully request the experts to find a flaw in my
definition for a “fundamental error”: Any error is a “fundamental error” if it
has been preventing scientific or technological progress by side-tracking the
progress into a wrong path resulting in a paradox filled with subjective
concepts, inexplicable contradictions and if the field ended up in a crisis. In
case of such fundamental error, no meaningful scientific or technological
progress could be possible until the error is exposed for putting the progress
on right tracks.
For example, untested
assumption that “the Earth is static” was a “fundamental error”, because it
resulted in a paradox filled with subjective concepts, inexplicable
contradictions and ended up in a crisis. No meaningful progress would have been
possible, if the error were not yet exposed for putting the scientific progress
on right tracks. Discovery of universal gravity, Newton’s laws of motion and
calculus to provide mathematical proof would could not have possible without
the three laws of Kepler.
I am sure, Kepler or Galileo
could not predict what great discoveries and inventions and scientific progress
facilitated by their effort to put the scientific progress on right path or
tracks. They must have speculated that the planetary orbits might be dictated
by some kind of force of attraction, if they could predict the future
discoveries.
I am sure, it is impossible to
predict what kind of progress would be possible, when the progress is put on
right path by discovering real software components for achieving the real CBD
for software products. But we can be sure, there will be great discoveries and
inventions lay ahead, when research start progressing on right path. For
example, the greatest invention for increasing productivity (i.e. invention of
interchangeable components) initially faced huge skepticism and resistance.
Many great scientific
discoveries are hard to predict until they were made. The scientists (e.g.
Newton, Darwin or Einstein) are became greatest scientists, because they made
such complex and unpredictable scientific discoveries. But one thing we can be
sure: Newton, Einstein and countless discoveries in physics could not have
possible without exposing the fundamental error “the Earth is static” and by
continuing on the wrong path. Likewise, we can be sure there is going to be no
great invention or discovery in software engineering or computer science until
such fundamental errors are fixed. In science and engineering, wrong path or
mistakes don’t lead to discovery of Americas (but end up in dead end crisis),
especially after wasting many decades.
If there exist anything worth
discovering, we could have discovered decades ago. Many experts concluded that
software engineering was in crisis decades ago (without realizing the
fundamental error at the root). After all their attempts to overcome software
crisis failed, Dr. Brooks prophesized ‘there is no silver bullet’. It is now
became a self-fulfilling prophesy for nearly three decades.
Many experts quoted this and
others as a justification and proof that software engineering is by nature
unique and different. But it is not hard to prove that (e.g. our website has
proof), even the designers of physical products face crisis (e.g. spaghetti
code) no different form the software crisis, if they are prevented from using
replaceable functional components to build component hierarchies (i.e. larger
and larger container components and eventually the product), where the
replaceable functional components are built and tested individually (free from
spaghetti code), and can be unplugged to refine and test individually (free
from spaghetti code) to satisfy evolving future needs.
Best Regards,
Raju
