Dear Friends,
Isn't
common sense: If one needs to draw a picture of something, for example XYZ,
doesn't he at least try to know what is XYZ and how does XYZ look like? For
example, how could any one draw a picture (or painting) of an elephant, without
ever even seeing or without having basic knowing, whether the elephant is a
tree, animal, bird or a landmark? If one needs to paint a picture of an elephant,
shouldn't he try to know what it is and how the elephants looks like?
How
could any one possibly say whether it is possible or not to invent real CBD for
software, without ever even trying to know what is the nature/essence of the CBD
(Component Based Design)? No software researcher in the world knows (e.g. can be
able to provide even right general rough description) what is the true essence
of the CBD of Physical Products, particularly the design and development of one
of a kind physical products such as experimental spacecraft or pre-production
fully tested final working models of next generation jet-fighters. Any one can
prove me wrong by providing accurate description for real CBD.
Don't
we need to have rough or basic knowledge about nature and essential properties
of physical components necessary for the CBD of physical products, if we want
to paint (i.e. invent) equivalent virtual components (having the essential
properties) necessary for the CBD of virtual software products in cyberspace. Today
software experts (i.e. of CBSD/CBSE) can't even recognize, even if a bunch of pictures
of elephants (i.e. real-software-components) fall in their lap. Even if you
show real-software-components and real CBSD, the so called CBSD/CBSE experts
think you are crazy and steadfastly snub the facts/reality. I have been trying
to demonstrate real-software-components and CBD for software for years, but not
able to make any progress. Most of the software researchers deny even obvious
facts, observations and evidence.
Software
researchers have been painting the nature and reality of so called software
components and CBD (Component Based Design) for software products for about 45
years, without making any effort to know what is nature and essential aspects
of CBD and essential properties of components. This completely altered their
perception of reality, which is preventing them to recognize obvious reality or
accept simple evidence or obvious facts.
The
scientific methods have proven track-record to systematically gather,
investigate and analyze evidence to discover nature and essential properties of
any kind of physical beings/things. The nature &
essential properties of physical components are objective facts, which can be
discovered by employing scientific methods. Scientific methods have proven
track-record for discovering essential properties of not only far more complex
physical things (e.g. viruses, bacteria, light, particles such as electrons)
but also uniquely and universally shared properties by far more diverse
species/beings (e.g. animals, plants or chemicals).
If
the Sun is at the center, believing that any planet other than sun at the
center and relying on such flawed axiom for expanding body of knowledge (e.g.
to comprehend the reality) lead to a crisis (filled with anomalies,
inconsistencies and contradictions such as inexplicable retrograde motions and
epicycles). Any scientific or engineering discipline and research efforts end
up in wrong path, if it starts relying on flawed axioms (e.g. such axiomatic
beliefs by assuming them to be self-evident facts). The discipline ends up in
crisis (e.g. paradoxical paradigm or altered perception of reality and
conventional wisdom), if the research efforts continue in the wrong path for
prolonged time without realizing such mistake.
Likewise,
if the essential properties of components are {R, S}, it is an error to define
properties of components any thing other than the properties {R, S}. Software
engineering ends up in a crisis (e.g. altered perception), if research efforts
try to expand body of knowledge by relying on such flawed properties for
prolonged period. It is a violation of basic rules or methods of mathematics
(or logic) to rely on flawed axioms, even computer science was to be a
sub-domain of mathematics alone. Using flawed axioms leads to inconsistent
axiomatic system (having contradictions), which is a classic example of a
crisis.
The
infamous software crisis would be a thing of past, even if few software
researchers spend just few days (by employing proven scientific methods without
violating processes and principles) to discover objective facts and reality
such as what is the true essence of ideal CBD for the physical products and the
essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known
physical functional component. If the essential properties are discovered, it
is a trivial task to invent real-software-components havening the essential
properties.
Many
software researchers react as if I asked them to leave their beloved religion
and join another religion, if I ask him to just investigate obvious evidence
and observations using proven scientific methods to discover the truth and
reality about ideal CBD. I am only requesting not to commit heresy by violating
basic religious tenets of our beloved religion (i.e. of advancing science &
technology).
The
purpose of basic research is pursuit of absolute Truth, which doesn't
necessarily mean discovering only absolute Truths, but also getting closer and
closer to the absolute Truths, without violating basic religious tenets (i.e.
widely accepted and proven scientific processes and principles). Itis a heresy to violate basic scientific processes and principles, because
violating basic scientific processes and principles diverts research effort
into a wrong path and ends up in a crisis (i.e. a paradoxical paradigm and
altered perception of reality), if research effort continues in the wrong path
for long enough time.
Even
a high school kid should not have problem drawing a rough picture certainly
resembling an elephant (without any ambiguity), if he has seen the pictures of the
elephants or if he has basic knowledge about the elephants. On the other hand,
even the best painter (i.e. software expert) can’t draw a picture (i.e. provide
even rough description) that even remotely resembles an elephant (i.e. CBD), if
has no clue what the elephants looks like (i.e. the CBD). Today software
researchers have no clue what is the nature and aspects of CBD to even roughly
describe the true nature or essential aspects of the CBD.
How can I convenience software researchers that it is
essential to gain basic knowledge using scientific methods having proven track
record for acquiring certain kinds of necessary BoK (Body of Knowledge) to
solve certain software problems that are not yet solved. The problems such as
real CBD for software and real Artificial-Inelegance (that are unsolved for a
long time) could not be solved withoutsuch BoK, which can only be acquired by using scientific methods (withoutviolating basic scientific principles and processes).
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri