Sunday, December 25, 2016

My New Year Wish for 2017 is to break free software engineering from the enslavement of "the Elephant Rope Syndrome" (or “the Baby Elephant Syndrome”)

Dear Friends,

Software engineering has been collectively conditioned between 1960s and 1980s by harsh and painful experiences of failures (e.g. infamous software crisis) and entrapped by “The Elephant Rope Syndrome” for past 25 years. The researchers of computer science and software assumed 50 years ago that it is impossible to invent real-software-components (that are equivalent to the physical components) for achieving real-CBD (Component Based Design) for software, which is equally powerful (and useful) as the CBD for physical products (i.e. equivalent for enjoying the true essence of the CBD).

As a baby elephant is incapable of breaking rope, it is understandable, why it was inconceivable of inventing real-software-components (essential for achieving real CBSD) by the primitive technologies existed 50 years ago and the state of computer science knowledge existed then. As the baby elephant can grow to be a mighty elephant in few decades, software technologies advanced substantially, but now mighty software is enslaved by prejudice & pre-conceived notions, which were conditioned by decades old experiences of painful failures.

The mighty elephant’s perceived limitation and weakness enslaved by the false consciousness of limitations existed in the past (but no longer true). Hence, software engineering has been suffering the Baby Elephant Syndrome by not even making any attempt to break free from the enslavement of things such as the infamous software crisis. For example, the software researchers have been refusing to gain necessary theoretical knowledge by using proven scientific methods for discovering objective reality such as (i) obvious facts about the nature and true essence of the CBD and (ii) nature and essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical component.

If the essential properties of the components are {R & S}, no physical part can ever be a component without havening the properties {R & S}. Likewise, no software part can be a real-software-component without having the properties {R & S}. Once such essential properties are discovered, it is a trivial task to invent software-components having the essential properties.

It is impossible to achieve real-CBD by using fake components (i.e. any other kind of parts not having the essential properties). Software researchers are stubbornly refusing to gain necessary knowledge about the nature and objective reality about the components and CBD, by insisting that it is impossible to invent real-software-components and CBD by citing past painful experiences of failures (e.g. decades old things such as “Mythical Man Month” and “No Silver Bullet”).

Software researchers have been brain washed to accept the limitations (existed decades ago and by the past experiences), which are no longer exist since 1990. Based on painful experiences of failures few decades ago (as a baby elephant), software researchers have been foolishly arguing that, even decades of relentless scientific and technological advancements (even after grownup to be a mighty elephant) could never overcome imaginary hurdles such as acquiring necessary knowledge for inventing real-software-components and necessary enabling mechanisms or processes for achieving the real-CBSD.

Today researchers react as if it is a heresy to question the 50 year old unproven or untested myths. Many foolish researchers insisted that, even million years of technological advancements can’t break the rope, as if those unproven myths are proven inalienable laws of nature. In effect, they imply that I am a liar, crazy or even fraud in open forum, when I make the following claims (that are backed by 6 US patents). Don’t they have moral and ethical obligation to give me an opportunity to defend myself, when they imply that I am liar or crazy? I consulted lawyers for filing a defamation case, but the lawyers suggested that the laws and judges are too lenient, so the crony intellectuals can easily get away.

Pioneer-soft discovered necessary knowledge for inventing real-software-components and necessary enabling mechanisms or processes for achieving the real-CBSD. Unfortunately, software researchers refusing to even look at the evidence (e.g. real-software-components and software designed and build by employing CBD), which exposes “the Elephant rope syndrome”. I may have to bribe the software researchers to do their duty, since the researchers abdicated their moral and ethical obligation to address counter-evidence, which helps them overcome “the Elephant rope syndrome” by exposing flawed concepts, theories or observations (of epicycles) being promoted today.

Isn’t it classic example for “the Baby Elephant Syndrome”: If it was inconceivable for the best technologies available (e.g. assembly or Fortran languages) in 1960s (as a baby), it is foolish to insist that it will be inconceivable even in the future (for hundreds of years), even after substantial scientific and technological advancements (grownup to be a mighty elephant).

Unfortunately, researchers foolishly react as if I am a liar or crazy for trying to expose “the Baby Elephant Syndrome” of software researchers or engineering, which already cost trillions of dollars to the world economy and would cost trillions more. Technologies for software engineering advanced sufficiently, by 1990, to break free from “the enslavement”, but researchers have been foolishly refusing to even try to free from the enslavement. Instead they imply that I am a liar or crazy for trying to expose their flawed prejudice and myths.

P.S: Proof backed by evidence and facts can be found at my ResearchGate account:, at my web-site and empirical evidence can be provided by using Pioneer-soft’s GUI-technologies at:

Best Regards,
Raju S Chiluvuri

Sunday, December 11, 2016

Would you knowingly risk your career, if openly defending or supporting Truth could ruin reputation or career (e.g. might put your promotion at risk)?

Dear Friends,

            If and when counter-evidence brought to his/her notice for any concepts or theories he has been promoting or supporting, isn’t it a moral and ethical obligation of any researcher to address the counter-evidence? Obviously, it is unethical and dishonest to ignore or hide such counter-evidence for any personal gains. Any scientific or engineering discipline is no different from mythology or a cult, if large number of researchers and scientists deliberately ignore or hide such counter-evidence. What is the difference between a scientist and a cult member?

But what would you do, if openly supporting or acknowledging Truth (i.e. counter-evidence) could ruin your reputation? For example, about 450 years ago, even if a researcher were to realize that “the Earth is not static (at the center)” by investigating the counter-evidence, openly supporting the Truth must have destroyed his/her reputation or even faced criminal persecution and punishment. Isn’t it moral obligation of every researcher to fight against such cult culture?

Please keep in the mind that geocentric paradox had been evolved for over 1500 years (due to relying on a 2000 year old flawed belief “the Earth is static”) and was deeply entrenched conventional wisdom 450 years ago, so saying the truth “the Sun is at the center” offended the common sense and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. Assume a critical sub-discipline of your scientific or engineering discipline ended up as the geocentric paradox of your scientific or engineering discipline (e.g. by relying on similar flawed belief).

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”  .. Arthur Schopenhauer.

“all great truths begin as blasphemies”   … George Bernard Shaw

What would you do, if counter-evidence (for concepts or theories you support and rely or use in your work) is brought to your notice? It could ruin your reputation or career (e.g. your promotion might be at risk), If you investigate the counter-evidence and choose to openly support (or acknowledge) the counter-evidence (e.g. recommend others to address the counter-evidence)?

Would you deliberately ignore or hide the counter-evidence to protect your career or reputation, since it is unethical or immoral to ignore or hide the counter-evidence for the geocentric paradox of your discipline?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri