tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8250561356643888835.post9061765884843694421..comments2014-01-08T20:38:57.279-08:00Comments on Respectful requesting help of experts in this noble effort for exposing Errors & Proving Facts: If flapping fake wings can’t be flying, how could using fake software components be CBD for software?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8250561356643888835.post-77927675709171666802014-01-08T20:38:57.279-08:002014-01-08T20:38:57.279-08:00A fun fact (sort of): A trillion dollars earns int...A fun fact (sort of): A trillion dollars earns interest of US$100 million a day, at the rate of interest of 3.65%. That is annual interest on trillion dollars (or 1000 billion) would be 36.5 billion (36,500 million), and we can calculate one day return by dividing 36,500 million by 365 days in the year. Of course, no bank would pay daily compound interest, so the interest rate must be about 3.79% to get US$100 million per each day.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8250561356643888835.post-72762475276627093152014-01-08T07:50:44.642-08:002014-01-08T07:50:44.642-08:00I always wondered, what would be the benefit of th...I always wondered, what would be the benefit of the invention of real-software components in next two decades. What would be the lost opportunity cost, if we were to fail exposing the error in the root postulation? What is the lost opportunity cost of real-software-components and real-CBD for software? Usually lost opportunity cost would be multiples of the market size of the invention. For example, market size for semiconductor-chips is about US$350 billion dollars, but if the semiconductor-chips were not invented, the world GDP would be less by US$ 7 trillion dollars (so the US$ 7 trillion is lost opportunity costs). For example, today market size for Flash memory is US$25 billion dollars, but if the Flash memory were not invented lost opportunity costs would be about US$ 75 billion. For example, cool things such as smart-phones, digital-cameras, pen-drives or iPads wouldn’t be so cool, if Flash memories were not yet invented.<br /><br />The lost opportunity cost of real-software-components for achieving real-CBD must be at least two times of the lost opportunity costs of Flash memory, so would be between US$150 to US$225 billion a year. The size of the world wide software industry is over a trillion dollars per year. The real components not only increase the productivity and quality by many folds but also allow building more complex software than practical today for addressing more complex problems. Furthermore, the cost and time required to make medium to large changes to large software systems built by assembling real-software-components would be one-fifth to one-tenth, which makes the software systems much more useful and much more responsive to changing unique needs.<br /><br />The benefits of CBD for software would be proportional to the size and complexity of the applications, so large and complex systems benefit substantially more from CBD. So conservatively 50% (i.e. US$500 billion) of the software industry deals with large or complex software, which could enjoy substantial benefits from the invention of real-software-components and real-CBSD. The remaining 50% (i.e. US$500 billion) of the software industry may be dealing with simple software such as web-pages or small applets and medium size applications (e.g. under 25,000 lines of code), which could also proportionally benefit from real-CBSD. Considering all these and other factors make my estimation for lost opportunity costs of between US$150 to US$225 billion a year would be very conservative. In fact, I believe it would be over US$500 billion a year. That is, if mankind were to invent the real-software-components a decade ago, the world GDP would be at least half-trillion higher today. If mankind were to invent the real-software-components a couple of decades ago, the world GDP would be higher by at least one-trillion today.<br /><br />These are conservative estimations by assuming normal improvements and innovations but assuming no major discoveries would be made. An error in any root postulation derails real scientific progress, and exposing the error opens the door for real progress. It is hard to predict what kinds of treasures lay ahead in the real path of true scientific progress until opening the door of truth for entering and start exploring the path for true scientific progress. Even greatest minds Kepler & Galileo (who opened the door of truth: Heliocentrism, by exposing flawed Geocentrism) didn’t imagine Gravity or laws of motion; otherwise must have speculated the reason for the planets circling the Sun might be Attraction. In case of such breakthrough inventions, the resultant size of the GDP must be few trillions more than estimated.<br /><br />If I am right in these estimations (which I am sure is conservative), can we afford to fail in exposing the error in the seed postulations of existing software engineering paradigm (which quickly leads to the inventions of real-CBSD)?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com