banner banner  

Is it a small mistake (that can be ignored without fatal consequences)?

The CBD is a major branch of the industrial engineering for designing and building complex physical products. Such major branch of CBD doesn’t even exist for the software engineering. If scientists make an error in basic concepts of a branch, things simple doesn’t work in the branch of any hard science (e.g. physics, chemistry or medical) or engineering of physical products. For example, none of the semi-conductor industry would have possible (i.e. existed today), if researchers made a mistake in understanding the enabling properties of semi-conductor materials. Likewise, the branch of fiber optic communication would not have possible, if they made a mistake in understanding the nature of enabling properties of light.
What would be the cost of such mistake in basic nature and enabling properties of fundamental building blocks of any branch? Such mistake certainly derails the advancement and none of the above would have been possible until the errors in the basic building blocks are discovered. The costs would have grown exponentially, if such errors are not detected for many decades, since now mankind experiencing financial benefits in respective branches that have been growing exponentially for past few decades. This would help us imagine the huge benefits in coming decades, if we expose the basic errors in the CBSD, which is blocking any meaningful advancement in software engineering for past decades.
The software researchers erroneously defined that certain kinds of useful software parts are components. They invented many kinds of component models, useful parts and have been improving them that creating an illusion that CBSD is working or making progress (but many can’t see real progress). Of course, it is possible to invent new kinds of useful software parts, but such parts (even if they are very useful) are not real components and can’t enable the branch of CBD for software. The 'real CBSD' and 'inventing other kinds of useful software parts' are mutually independent. It is error to assume CBSD has been advancing due to such progress in an unrelated branch. The brilliant minds in our software defined 'CBSD is using such useful software parts, and have been inventing or improving them, which created illusion CBSD is working or making progress.
Can any software expert prove that, he is even remotely aware of the nature of real CBD by giving any realistic description for the real CBD of physical products? Alternatively, we defined that the ideal CBD is achieving the CBD-structure by using CBD-process. Can any software expert either (i) find a flaw in it, or (ii) give a valid reason why it is not possible to achieve the CBD-structure for software products by inventing real software components (that are equivalent to the physical components)?
If one wish to achieve real artificial flight (e.g. CBD for software), he must discover real flying by observing the birds souring and maneuvering in the sky (e.g. CBD-structure of physical products). Then invent mechanisms for achieving the equivalent flight (i.e. CBD-structure for software). Isn’t it foolish to define flapping each kind of fake wings (i.e. useful parts) is a kind of flying (e.g. CBSD)? Is it a small mistake, if aeronautics (e.g. CBD for software) industry defines flying is traveling between point-A and point-B (where the two points are separated by few miles), and define many kinds of flying (CBSD), such as walking is a kind of flying, swimming is a kind of flying or riding on an automobile is yet another kind of flying?
Don’t be fooled by arguments that it is a small mistake and discovery of real facts about real CBD and inventions of real CBSD will have little or no impact on the software crisis. Many experts made similar foolish arguments to discredit even the greatest discovery: The Sun (not the Earth) is at center. This error derailed the scientific progress, because no meaningful progress in the science could possible without correcting the error in seed postulations. If the mankind failed to correct the so called small mistake that, ‘the Sun (not the Earth) is at center’, no real scientific progress (e.g. Newton’s laws of motion, Gravity or calculus to provide mathematical basis) was possible. Likewise, no meaningful progress in software engineering until the errors in the seed postulations are exposed.
The irrefutable fact is: the software industry blindly following the 40 years old erroneous assumptions (or axioms), which defined ‘software components’ as synonym for multiple kinds of ‘software parts. So software experts is completely ignorant about the true nature of real CBD. Is it a small mistake, if the software industry tries to create many kinds of fake cavalry (i.e. CBDs) for wars (i.e. for software for 40 years) by assuming pigs are a kind of horses (e.g. components), goats are another kind of horses and sheep are a kind of horses? Is it a small mistake, if an expert still argues that, using each kind of useful part is a kind of CBSD, and then he justifies the software crisis by using erroneous/misleading excuses that software is unique or different?
Kindly allow me to illustrate this using a simple analogy: The 'horse' is a specific kind of 'animal', so isn’t it an error to use the term 'horse' as a synonym to much broader term 'animal' (that includes many kinds of animal including a specific kind of animal - 'horse'). Toady, if one goes to any large trade show, exhibition for the software components or reads best selling books on CBSD, he can find many kinds of useful parts, except the real-software-components (i.e. for achieving the real-CBSD). It was like going to trade show or exhibition for horses 700 years ago and finding 25 to 27 kinds of useful animals, except the horses (e.g. for creating a cavalry). Of course, each kind of animal may be useful in a specific manner (e.g. Chicken for eggs and meat), but it doesn’t change the fact that none of them are horses (essential for Cavalry).

It is an error to assume reusable or standardized large software part/module are components, just because a fraction of large active-components are reusable or standardized. For example, does any other kind of 4-legged animal can be a horse, just because horses have 4-legs.

It is essential to discover the unique characteristics of the horses (i.e. components), for example, by grasping a set of few characteristics unique to the horses and universally shared by the horses. If each of the animals in a animal-circus is shown to a person claimed to be an expert on the horses, he must positively and unambiguously say that it is a horse (only if it is a horse); and he must positively and unambiguously say that it is not a horse (only if it is not a horse).


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