Would any one accept an absurd definition that “Flying is not much more
than flapping wings”? Any one who has seen birds and airplanes flying in the
sky shall never accept such insane definition. Those who don’t know ‘what is
flying’ could discover ‘real-flying’ by observing the aerobatic maneuvers of
birds and airplanes flying in the sky. Doesn’t humankind know ‘what is CBD of
the physical products’? Those who don’t know ‘what is CBD’ could discover
‘real-CBD’ by observing the design and development of a first working model of
a complex one-of-a-kind product (e.g. experimental jet-fighter or spacecraft)
or a unique product being invented newly (e.g. artificial kidney).
It is impossible to accept absurd definition “CBD for software is not
much more than using so called software components”, if one discovers inherent
nature of real-CBD (e.g. essential aspects uniquely and universally shared by
design of any physical CBD-products). Our website can help researchers discover
‘what is CBD’, by briefly illustrating essential aspects uniquely and
universally shared by design of any physical CBD-product (e.g. CBD-structure & CBD-process). There is no valid
reason, why design of complex software must be different from design of a first
working model of any complex new or one-of-a-kind physical product, once
researchers discover essential characteristics uniquely and universally shared
by the physical functional components for inventing real-software-components
that are equivalent to the physical functional components by having the
essential characteristics.
What is CBD all about and are there any essential recognizable aspects for
CBD? For example, let me provide an essential recognizable aspect: Cost of any
complex CBD product can be disassembled or reassembled under 3% of the total
cost of designing and building all the components and the product. Any large component
(even complex component having 100s of sub-components) can be located and
disassembled and re-assembled as a unit, for example, to replace by a better
component or to redesign and test the component individually outside (e.g. to
improve the component little-by-little in step-1 or step-3 of CBD-process).
It is not necessary that even a single large component in the component
hierarchy need to be reusable, standardized or have any other properties
erroneously attributed to so called software components exist today. More
useful CBD-facts about the design of physical CBD-products and CBD-rules for
achieving real-CBD for software equivalent to the CBD of physical products is
provided at as 3-CBD-rules: http://real-software-components.com/technologies/CBD-facts-rules.html.
Could any one prove there is no error in the following
unsubstantiated seed postulation on which researchers of computer science and
software engineering have been relying for four decades for inventing
Component-Based Design for advancing software engineering: Today the term ‘software components’ is used as synonym to
certain kinds of “software parts”, where each kind of so called
software-components by definition (or convention) is a kind of useful parts
either (1) Having certain useful properties (e.g. reusable or standardized
etc.) or (2) Conforming to a so called Software Component-Model. It is
impossible to find any evidence that any one else ever suspected that there
could be an error or dared to question its validity.
This unsubstantiated axiomatic postulation (i.e. a mere
assumption or myth) resulted in many kinds of so called software components
without any consideration to facts or basis in reality. Any baseless axiomatic assumption,
if it can be proved an error, is a myth. Also resulted in many kinds of CBSDs
(i.e. CBD for Software), where each kind of CBSD is blindly defined as using
one or more kinds of so called components (or so called component models).
When clearly informed, how could any responsible researcher
or scientist ignore and do nothing, when knowing tens of thousands of
researchers might be wasting their efforts for advancing the software
engineering by relying on a mere myth (i.e. by erroneously believing that it is
a fact). The
cost of this error in past two decades must be in trillions of dollars and no
meaningful progress in productivity of software engineering shall be possible
until this error is exposed.
Of course, an expert doesn’t need to take our word of an
unknown researcher from no where, but don’t they have intellectual curiosity
and common sense. Isn’t too much to request for using simple reasoning and
common sense: Isn’t it a huge error to knowingly rely on such baseless myth for
scientific progress, if he can’t find evidence that it is not a myth?
Furthermore our website provided ample evidence to prove possible error, which
is more than enough to compel any responsible researcher to ascertain its validity
(by analyzing all the irrefutable facts & valid observations).
If given opportunity, I can provide conclusive proof, where
the proof is already provided openly in our website for any expert to validate.
It is extremely disappointing, if no one cares about such absurd errors or it
is impossible to make the responsible people aware of such absurd errors
(costing hundreds of billions), for example, if they try to evade (e.g. by
using silly excuses or pretend to be busy) by feeling that it is some else’s
responsibility. When we successful with the help of researchers having intellectual
curiosity, true love and passion for our beloved computer science, do such
organizations deserve licenses to our patented Tools and inventions when, if
they feel that it must be done on some else’s dime and they feel entailed to such
inventions?
Many Indian software companies feel they can infringe, plagiarize,
pirate or steel intellectual property, once it is proven on some else’s expense.
If I have a say or able to convince other stakeholders, few companies run by such
arrogant CEOs and top management would never get licenses. I feel, people who
don’t feel passionately about advancing technology don’t deserve to be in technology
business. What is the incentive for research for advancing the science and
technology, if few people invest and take big risks and others can steel intellectual
property for free?
How is it possible for any researcher to bring a disruptive
discovery (which could add trillions to world economy) to notice of responsible
researchers? Mankind already wasted few decades by relying on this myth. Today
billions of dollars is being invested in research for advancing computer
science and software engineering. Large portion of this money and effort of
thousands of researchers is going to be wasted, if no one tries to validate the
above myth and continue to rely on the myth (by believing that it is a fact).
