banner banner  

It is essential to have open mind to discover objective facts

We humble request fellow software experts, researchers and scientists to kindly review and validate various new concepts, facts and evidence with open mind. The primary objective of this web-site is to expose the errors exist in the seed postulations such as software components and CBD for software or CBSE (Component-Based Software Engineering).
I understand that it might appear to be arrogant or disrespectful to dispute or disagree with widely accepted or acclaimed concepts, works or seminal papers of highly respected researchers and brilliant experts. Please kindly remember most of these works or seminal papers must rely on seed postulations to a very high degree. Hence if there are any errors in the seed postulations, the concepts in the research papers that rely on seed postulations must be invalid. Those respected researchers not made any mistakes in their work (or research paper), except relying on the widely accepted seed postulations already have been in existence for decades (understandable not knowing that there are errors in the seed postulations).
It is impossible to have an honest and productive exchange of ideas is possible, if respected experts feel that it is arrogant or disrespectful to question the seed postulations of the existing deeply entrenched paradigm or widely accepted or acclaimed concepts created by relying on the seed postulations. Please kindly remember that we never intended to be arrogant or disrespectful.
Unfortunately there is no polite or humble way to explain the errors in the seed postulations. Many reviewers of our proposals use such seminal works or widely acclaimed papers to discredit our discoveries or facts and to defend the erroneous seed postulations (not realizing that they are using an invalid circular logic). Many feel I am arrogant or disrespectful, if I try to defend my discoveries by try to explain the errors in the concepts that rely on the seed postulations. My intention was only to explain how error in the seed postulation resulted in a error in a concept presented in the paper.
The logic and reasoning may be impeccable, but the error is result of relying on the erroneous seed postulations. In those cases, we never disagree with logic and reasoning, but try to explain how the error in the seed postulation contributed to wrong results or conclusions.
We are humbly and polity requesting fellow software researchers to analyze facts and evidence presented with open mind. Nothing in this web-site is meant to be arrogant or disrespectful.
Only objective of this website is to respectfully present facts, valid observations and rational reasoning to expose errors in the seed postulations of existing paradigm. These errors derailed the scientific advancement. Until such basic errors in CBSD (real CBD for Software) are discovered and find ways to overcome, the scientific area must endure crisis, even if it takes hundreds of years.
Of course, it is understandable why many of the CBSD experts feel offended (who are proud of their expertise in the CBSD), if a stranger like me appear out of the blue from nowhere and stats firmly (but politely) that the existing CBD/CBE for software is fake and/or all respected CBSE/CBSD experts are wrong.
I intend no disrespect, since I was also once strong backer of existing paradigm, until accidentally stumbled on to new kind of components and has taken nearly a decade of passionate research to discover hidden facts about the physical-components and CBD of physical-products, which helped discover mysterious property of true active-components.
I have utmost respect for accomplished experts. I am not disputing any of their works and valuable contributions. I am only saying that, there are errors in the seed postulations. Just like any other practitioner in the software industry, I also not only relied but also advocated the seed postulations for many years (until few unexpected events led me to discovering the errors).
I believe, the best way to show my respect is to make sure that I am absolutely right.  I invested many years to make sure, I am absolutely right (before humbly presenting facts to expose errors). I can't found any other way to show my respect, except keeping quiet and agreeing with prevailing errors, which I feel in truly disrespectable (even though it is perceived otherwise). Unfortunately any scientific field eventually ends up in a crisis, if basic “ontological assumptions” (or seed postulations) of the scientific field are wrong. It is nearly impossible to expose the errors without enduring the pain.
It is impossible to overcome the crisis without acknowledging the errors (even if it takes hundreds of years), and rebuilding ontology of a new paradigm based on newly discovered facts. This process is at heart of any Kuhnian paradigm shift. That is, a Kuhnian paradigm shift begins when new discoveries able to expose errors in basic “ontological assumptions” of a deeply entrenched existing paradigm, where the existing paradigm has been already advanced for many decades or centuries relying on errors and have established a complex ontology (comprising set of interdependent concepts, vocabulary, terminology and beings) of the paradigm in the collective wisdom/conscious of experts. Unfortunately replacing this erroneous ontology of old paradigm by an accurate ontology of new paradigm is highly disruptive and confrontational.
For example, the struggles for the first big paradigm shift in physics resulted from Geocentric-model (i.e. the Earth is static at the center) to Heliocentric-model, which was well documented. One may learn intellectual battles Galileo endured by searching for many famous quotes of Galileo Galilee. Without this paradigm shift, how is it possible to discover forces of nature such as Gravity or Newton’s laws (invention of calculus for providing mathematical proof), which are essential for advancing the field? It is not possible for Geocentric-model and Heliocentric-model to co-exist. Likewise, it is hard to find a way to explain irrefutable facts about the Components/CBD, without exposing the errors in the existing paradigm (but unfortunately exposing such error is perceived as arrogant or disrespectful).
The ontology for CBD for physical products is proven, widely known and accepted. Except unsubstantiated misconception (or baseless excuses), there is no valid reason why real CBSD can’t have a new paradigm by adopting the ontology (i.e. concepts, vocabulary, terminology and beings). It is embarrassing and contemptuous to find a defense or excuse, if one asks how can all the respected researchers (e.g. at top universities such as MIT, Berkeley or Stanford and respected companies such as Microsoft, Google or IBM) be wrong (e.g. about the descriptions of components or definitions of the CBSD)? Any response likely appear insensitive, arrogant or disrespectful to many highly respected and accomplished researchers. Least embarrassing or offensive answer may be, humbly requesting to verify all of the facts.
I too asked myself that question many times - How could they all be wrong and why haven’t they seen facts (that appears so obvious to me now)? Even after working for a decade and having created hundreds of CBD-structures, whenever I think about it, it even shakes my confidence and takes few hours to re-ascertain facts to reassure myself (that I made no mistake). I occasionally get nightmares that there is an error in my discoveries, which reminds me the nightmares I used to have in early 1990s that I flunk all subjects of MS in Computer Science, although I completed my MS in 1988 with 4.0/4.0 GPA.
Only way to reassure myself is by revisiting all of the facts by relying on my experience of building hundreds of CBD-structures and my 10 years of effort to validate all the facts. I am sure I might have quit this effort long ago, if hadn’t started the CBD research years after building hundreds of CBD-structures for RIA. The intent for building hundreds of component-hierarchies is to invent the best GUI-API for RIA for minimizing marketing effort essential to start a business, since I know I am very poor at marketing and selling to partners/clients or to secure an investment). If I were successful with then pending-patents (now granted) for the best GUI-API for RIA, I might not have pursued the CBD effort.
I still refer to each reusable GUI-class for presenting a GUI-component (e.g. chart, map or list) as reusable-component, although I know it is technically wrong (but old habits die hard). Since now I know the difference between them, it won't cause any confusion for me.
Isn’t the CBD-structure an irrefutable fact of an ideal CBD? Is it possible for any other kind of part (except a very specific kind of parts, known as components) to achieve the ideal CBD-structure? Why only components can achieve CBD-structure? What are the unique universal properties of the components, which are absolutely essential for a part to become a components and allow such components to enable the CBD-structure? If the unique essential properties are known, why is it not possible to build equivalent software- components to enable the CBD-structure for the software products? Is it impossible to constrain software-parts to certain states/forms (see FIG-8).
In his email dated 4-Jun-2010 to me, Dr. Clemens Szyperski (Author of book: ‘Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming’) said: “CBSE (by definition of the CBSE community, which is, like any other definition, just words that some set of folks agree on)”. I must respectfully disagree.
Can a set of folks agree on laws of nature (pre-existing phenomena), without even studying phenomena to discover facts? In fact, the agreed definitions contradict many known facts about real-component and real-CBD. Why is it any different from agreeing “the Earth is static at the center” and insisting on using the agreed definition to invent the planetary motion or laws of physics (e.g. gravity)? How can aviation experts agree or define flying (e.g. CBSE) is flapping wings (e.g. using fake components), when the agreed definition is contrary to obvious facts?
The real-components and CBD of physical products exists for centuries. Since real-components and CBD are physical things and physical phenomena respectively, it is certainly possible to discover accurate description (by using objective facts or answers close enough to the objective facts). I strongly disagree with post-facto definitions for such properties or nature of physical things/phenomena, since we know that mankind can only discover hidden laws of nature, but the nature can be never dictated or defined.
If I disagree with any respected researcher, it is not arrogance or I meant no disrespect. I always respect Dr. Clemens Szyperski and other great experts, even though I disagree with them. I contacted Dr. Fred Brooks, Dr. Brad Cox and others (in the early days, by then I discovered few errors but yet to discover RSCCs for real-CBD), because I respect them and their expertise and knowledge in the area of software engineering (e.g. to get feedback and critique from the best and the brightest in our field).
For example, in response to facts to expose an error Dr. Fred Brooks in his email said: “You quote me correctly, and I continue to hold that view. So you and I disagree, as gentlemen may do.
Although I know certain verifiable facts are not subjective and not open for debate or such disagreements, I felt it is disrespectful to state my opinion frankly to the great man, whom I admire. However, such exchanges helped me in my research to finally discover and validate the facts. No real scientist must disagree with objective facts, such as heliocentric model or existence of Gravity (until he can produce sufficient irrefutable evidence to show possible error/contradiction). Therefore, answer to “What are essential aspects of the CBD?” is an objective facts, so not open for disagreements.
I meant no disrespect, even if I forcefully or frankly state a verifiable fact, and request to verify my fact/proof or request an expert for a proof to substantiate his statement or views. One must note the difference between 2 kinds of concepts (1) subjective truth or view, where it is possible for more than one truth/view to co-exist (2) objective truth or fact, where it is impossible for more than one truth/fact to co-exist.
Hence the truth is: Certain facts are not subjective and not open for debate. For example, many facts such as flying (e.g. CBD) are not subjective. Isn’t it error to assume flying (or CBD) is only flapping wings (or using fake components)? The facts must be discovered based on evidence, observation and sound reasoning. Are laws of nature such as gravity or geocentric-model debatable or subjective to have more than one right answer?
A scientist must provide certain observed facts or results of experiments and rational reasoning to support his views. A scientist can’t hold a view without a sound rational reason and if newly discovered facts could contradict and/or conclusively invalidate the existing views.

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