Is it a blasphemy to ask respected researchers 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?
It is shameful and scandalous that even in 21st century modern scientific and engineering disciplines (originated just about 50 years ago from mid 20th century) are rooted in myths, wishful thinking and fantasies (e.g. that forced researchers to practice 21st century alchemy).
Mankind believed until 500 year ago that “the Earth is static (at the center)”. Mankind evolved a complex paradox (altered reality) for thousands of years by relying on this unproven myth (e.g. by considering that it is an inalienable Truth).
Which planet is at the center? Who made the great discovery “the Earth is static”? Who verified this discovery, before accepting and relying on it as an inalienable Truth for advancing the mankind’s knowledge for 1000 years? No one asked this simple question: Is there any proof to show that “the Earth is static”?
Who discovered software parts having useful properties (e.g. reusable or standardized) are real components for software for achieving real CBD (Component Based Design) for software products? Obviously this is in clear contradiction to our knowledge facts and the reality we know about the physical functional components and CBD of new and one of a kind physical products (e.g. experimental spacecraft and prototype of a next generation jet fighter).
But no one asked this simple question such as: Is there any proof to show that it is a Truth before relying on this myth and wasting several decades? What are physical functional components (e.g. what are the essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component)? What is CBD for physical products (e.g. what are the essential aspects uniquely and universally shared by each and every known CBD of physical products)?
Any one ever proved that it is impossible to find such properties/aspects? If the answer is no, any one ever proved that it is impossible to invent true software components (having the essential properties) equivalent to the physical functional components? To prove that such newly invented components are real, they must be able to achieve real CBSD (CBD for software products), where the real CBSD must share the essential aspects of real CBD for physical products?
Today it is even impossible to find any one even ever tried to discover such properties/aspects. When computer science was in infancy 50 years ago, a committee decided that reusable software parts are software components (without any basis and reality). The committee set the goal for the CBSE is to build software products by assembling reusable components from 3rd party component vendors as mankind has been building the computers by assembling COTS (Commercially Off The Shelf) components by ignoring the countless realities. For example, computer engineers deal with just one product family (i.e. computers) and use software for competitive differentiation, while software engineers need to deal with numerous and ever expanding product families such as OSs, compilers, Games, MS-Office, ERP or browsers etc.
Mankind wasted many centuries by relying on untested myth that “the Earth is static”. We all know that, no one proved that it is ‘the Earth is static’. It was just a myth originated thousands of years ago and passed on to each of the successive generations.
Mankind already wasted few decades by relying on hidden untested and undocumented myths by using baseless excuses such as software is unique and/or different. How many more decades mankind can afford to waste by relying on such baseless myths created in the formative years of computer science and passed on to each of the successive generation of researchers, who are forced to practice 21st century alchemy?
Is it possible to invent reusable (i.e. COTS) physical functional components for build not yet invented or new one of a kind physical product by assembling such COTS? Then how is it possible to invent such software components to build software products for ever expanding software product families? Isn’t it equivalent to the 21st century alchemy?
The discovery that “the Sun is at the center” resulted in a radically different reality, which comprising countless concepts that are in clear contradiction (e.g. diagonally opposite) to previously undisputed geocentric paradox. Now we know that it was foolish to use widely accepted concepts of geocentric paradox to discredit the Truths that were basis for then fledgling new heliocentric paradigm.
Likewise discovery of Truth (e.g. the essential properties/aspects) would result in a new radically different reality, which would comprise of countless concepts that will be in clear contradiction (e.g. diagonally opposite) to existing undisputed CBSE paradox. It is foolish to use widely accepted concepts of existing CBSE paradox to discredit the Truths that are at the root of fledgling paradigm that can be evolved by relying on the Truths.
Since the existing CBSE paradox evolved from myths (e.g. such as it is impossible to invent real software components equivalent to the physical functional components), no concept of the existing CBSE paradigm can be used to contradict the Truths (if the truths are in contradiction to the myths at the root of the existing CBSE paradox). It is an invalid circular logic to use the concepts of the existing CBSE paradox to defend the myths at the root of the existing CBSE paradox (e.g. to discredit the Truths of new proposed fledgling paradigm).
Galileo Galilee … I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
Computer science needs scientists not yet forgo sense, reason, and intellect. How and where can I find such experts? I can understand why the 16th century scientists believed that the “Earth is static”. Because they lived all their life on the Earth and not only themselves but many generations found no reason to suspect that “the Earth is moving (around any planet)”. But what reasons software researchers have to blindly defend the myths conceived 50 years ago about the software components and CBSE. Many experts not only blindly following the myths but also ferociously defending the myths conceived 50 years ago, even though countless concepts related to the software components and CBSE are in clear contradiction to the reality we know about the physical functional components and CBD of physical products.