Dear Respected Researchers at SEI at CMU & members of SDP at NITRD.gov,

I would like to humbly bring to kind notice of researchers a huge error in one of the root postulations of existing software engineering paradigm. It is an irrefutable fact that: the software researchers have been working vary hard for decades to advance software engineering paradigm and CBD for software by relying on axiomatic assumption that each kind of useful software parts is a kind of useful software components, where each kind of useful software parts by definition or convention either (i) having given useful properties (e.g. reuse or standardized) or (ii) conform to a given so called component model.

For example, every thing we know about the CBD of physical products and physical components contradict concepts of existing many kinds of CBSD and many kinds of so called software components. To name just a couple: There is only one kind of CBD for physical products and there is just one very special kind of  physical-parts having unique essential properties that can achieve the one kind of CBD (where the one very special kind of physical-parts are known as components).

The computer-chip industry can’t even exist without discovering the innate nature and how electrons behave in material such as semi-conductors. Likewise, huge industry of fiber-optic networks can’t exist today without discovering the innate nature and how light behaves in material such as fibers. How can we in software expect to create an industry based on real-software-components by being clueless about the innate nature and why real-components are essential for achieving hierarchy of replaceable components for CBD?

My research spanning more than a decade was focused on discovering the innate nature and unique essential aspects of physical-components and CBD of physical products. Based on my frequent searches, I believe, no one else is aware of this error for doing this kind of research to discover the nature. My goal is to make the researchers and research organizations aware of these unsubstantiated postulations, which is in clear contradiction to reality and facts.

Sir, I understand many respected experts like you would be justifiably skeptical to such claims. So I put all the evidence openly in my website for any expert to validate. Each and every statement and concept is supported by irrefutable facts and evidence in one or more WebPages at our website. If there are any more questions or requires clarifications, I could humbly answer by relying only on facts. All this is backed by my extensive experience in building hundreds of GUI-applications as hierarchies of replaceable real-software-components starting in year 2000, some of them I am more than eager to demonstrate (if given opportunity).

Whatever justification offered to defend this error is not based on facts. Unfortunately many experts justify these contradictions by using baseless excuses such as software is different or unique. I respectfully disagree. Many experts refuse to provide any valid reason for why and what manner componentization of software must be different from componentization of any complex unsolved problem or newly invented complex one-of-a-kind physical products such as experimental jet-fighter or spacecraft.

Please kindly understand that the componentization is the most effective and efficient methods known to mankind to solve any complex problems such as designing & building one-of-a-kind physical products (e.g. an experimental Jet-fighter or a spaceship) and complex software applications.

In light of simple CBD-facts and CBD-rules, it is a mistake to compare designing of new software applications either with mature product families such as automobiles (where over 80% of core components of a product-model such as Toyota Camry or Honda Accord are custom designed for the just one product model for competitive differentiation); or with a crowded product families such as cell-phones (where not the hardware components but software applications & OS can be used for competitive differentiation, so highly conducive for component reuse and standardization). All these kind of aspects for real-CBD are extensively substantiated in multiple WebPages in our website.

Stating the fact that “the Sun is at the center” offended common sense or insulted deeply entrenched collective conventional wisdom of respected scientists 500 years ago. Likewise, unfortunately few software researchers might feel offended, when I try to point out certain errors.

Please kindly remember, the software engineering paradigm has been evolving since 1968 (resulting in deeply entrenched conventional wisdom and a huge ecosystem of interdependent concepts), by relying on this huge undetected error. At any time since 1970s tens of thousands of researchers have been working very hard (e.g. applying brute force) with passion for advancing the software engineering by relying on this unsubstantiated flawed root postulation (without aware of the huge error).

This brute force resulted in evolution of complex paradoxical paradigm with ecosystem comprising 3-dimensional web of interdependent concepts (many of them are no different from epicycles & retrograde motions resulted form the error in the root postulation). Mankind not made this kind of error in basic seed axiomatic premises since exposing the error of then deeply entrenched Geocentric-paradigm 400 years ago. Please kindly remember, it is invalid circular logic to use any thing (e.g. epicycles and retrograde motion) derived from geocentric-paradigm to discredit heliocentric-paradigm.

I believe and can prove that, the cost of not having real-software-components would be comparable to the cost of not having fiber optic networks. I am sure that the USA can’t be follower of this kind of critical discovery, which puts the research on the right track. Real software components and real-CBSD allow us to build many times more complex systems at a faction of cost. My goal is to openly inform the researchers at SEI about this error that is costing hundreds of billions to the world economy. How can software researchers invent real-CBSD by being clueless and by refusing to discover the innate nature of basic building blocks?

My goal is to make respected scientists aware of the possible existence of a huge error. Just like any real science and engineering software can be and must be based of facts and sound rational reasoning (instead of baseless axioms). I am respectfully requesting researchers to not forget sacred duty of pursuing Truth by only relying on facts (or Truths): http://real-software-components.blogspot.in/ and http://real-cbsd.blogspot.in

I openly and humbly request researchers to discover the facts about the real functional components and CBD of physical products. I strongly feel, it is fundamental duty of researchers to discover truth. How many life times of research effort must be wasted for creating epicycles and retrograde motions to defend the geocentric-model of software engineering?

This kind of huge waste of effort and money can be stopped by just discovering unique essential properties that are universally shared by each and every physical component in the world. This discovery not only exposes the huge error but also help invent real-software-components that are logically equivalent to the physical functional components (by having the unique essential properties) for achieving real-CBSD logically equivalent to the CBD of physical products (for securing huge benefits of real componentization).

Can the USA afford to ignore this kind of discovery: 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.

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri