banner banner  
Is it a small error (to define each kind of useful parts is a kind of components)?
Please kindly allow me to illustrate by using simple analogies: Could the semiconductors and electronic industry be created and evolved, if mankind don’t know the essential properties and nature of the electrons and how they behave in certain conditions (e.g. in semiconductor material)? Could the fiber optic networks even emerge, if mankind don’t know the essential propertied and behavior of light (e.g. in glass and fiber strands or wires)? How could the software CBSE researchers expect to invent real-components and real CBD for software by ignoring and refusing to know the basic nature and essential properties that are uniquely and universally shared by real physical components?
Isn’t it essential to discover the essential properties and nature of very basic building blocks such as electrons, light or real-software-components for very creation and evolution of respective fields? How could any one insist that it is impossible to invent such real-software-components, by being clueless & never even have trying to discover basic nature and essential properties of physical functional components and clueless about process and mechanisms of CBD for physical products?
If one can prove that real-software-components (i.e. componentization) and real-CBD for software can offer no benefits for designing and maintaining (e.g. adapting to evolving needs) large and complex software products, then ignoring and being clueless about the nature of real-components and real-CBSD might not be an error. This can be a small error, if the real-components have very little use for the large and complex software products. It is a huge error, because of the fact that the real-components shall be extremely useful for designing and maintaining large and complex software products.
The componentization is the most effective & efficient solution known to the mankind to address large & complex problems by a team experts. The real-components offer huge benefits directly and indirectly. The software developers rely on huge existing software infrastructure (e.g. compilers, OS and RDBMS etc.) and ecosystem of software tools (e.g. CASE-tools, libraries etc.). The invention of real-components shall results in the beginning and progressive evolution of superior infrastructure and ecosystem for building and maintaining both simple and complex software products.
Is it possible to imagine designing complex products such as Cars, Airplanes, factories or even Integrated-Circuits or ICs such as DRAM or Intel-CPU? Of course, the IC-chips are by themselves doesn’t contain components, but the Semiconductor-Fabs use complex high-precision equipment to make the IC-chips, where such complex equipment can’t be built without real-components. That is, without the components it is impossible to create the infrastructure & ecosystem for building complex IC-chips (or cement). This kind of indirect and progressively increasing benefits must not be ignored.
Please kindly remember few basic aspects. I am sure most of the experts feel that this is just common sense: The Truth or facts must be the God for any scientist. Even a small error nudges scientific and technological progress in a wrong course (or path). If tens of thousands of scientists working very hard with passion (e.g. by applying brute force) at any time to advance the field for decades without realizing the error, this course increasingly diverges further & further away from the path of true progress (i.e. Truths). Especially even a small error made in the infancy of a field would results in huge diversion from the right path for real scientific and technological progress over time.
It is historically a proven fact that: It is impossible for any error to be small, if the error is in seed (very basic or root) postulations (or axiomatic assumptions) of huge filed such as software engineering. At any time, tens of thousands scientists and researchers have been applying brute force since 1970 to advance the field by heavily relying on the erroneous seed postulation (i.e. without realizing the error, which resulted in a complex deeply entrenched paradigm of erroneous concepts).
It is know fact that, without the discovery of the error in the Geocentric-paradigm, no meaningful advancement in the basic science would have been possible. Most scientists passionately had argued that it must be small error, if at all it was an error. It was impossible to even imagine the implications of exposing the error 500 years ago. For example, the impact of the discovery and exposing the error was not felt on the day-to-day lives of ordinary people for many decades. Could that make it a small error that can be ignored? The mankind would still be in dark ages, if such so called small error was ignored. Without exposing the error, how is it possible to discover forces of nature such as Gravity or Newton’s laws (and timeless invention of calculus for providing mathematical proof), which are essential for advancing the basic sciences and human knowledge?
Today the software experts or researchers are absolutely clueless about the hidden nature and essential properties of real components. If one asks 10 software experts “What is the components”, one gets more that 10 different descriptions (e.g. each describes a kind of useful parts). Only the God has more mysterious description than the components, as if no one alive ever seen the real-components for achieving a CBD-structure. It is absolutely essential to discover hidden nature and essential properties of real functional components for inventing real-software-components (equivalent to the active components) that can achieve real-CBD & componentization for software.
I intend no disrespect, if my humble reasoning and observations appear to be blasphemy against common sense and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom resulted from the existing paradigm, which evolved since 1970 by relying on the huge error. Is it blasphemy to respectfully request software scientists to investigate & discover the hidden nature and essential properties that are uniquely and universally shared by the physical functional-components (or active-components)?

Copy Right © 2013 SPPS Systems Pvt.Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
This Website presents patented and patent-pending Inventions and Discoveries