banner banner  

The first true Kuhnian paradigm shift is by nature controversial

The new proposed real CBSD (Component-Based Design of software-products) and CBSE (Component-based Software Engineering) requires a first ever true Kuhnian paradigm shift. It requires basic shift in “ontological assumptions” as explained at:
Unfortunately a paradigm-shift (especially the first paradigm shift in a nascent science that is still based on myths and not yet formalized, such as, computer science) is contentious. For example, many statements that question the validity of basic or axiomatic concepts (e.g. myths) of existing deeply entrenched paradigm and conventional wisdom appear to be arrogant, disrespectful or offending the common sense (although it is most certainly not our intent). Why any one foolish to be disrespectful to his peers and possibly invite insults/snubbs in-return for being disrespectful, when he is humbly requesting verification for approval of his discoveries from them.
We humbly requesting an opportunity prove the fact that, today the software engineering is relying on many informal or subjective concepts, even though it is possible to rely on objective facts and formal mature processes, such as, CBD-process of real-CBSD.
Unfortunately it is impossible to explain real CBSD, without educating about the errors in the seed postulations (or axiomatic concepts) of existing deeply entrenched paradigm. This leads to basic shift in “ontological assumptions” about the basic building blocks, such as right kind of software components that can enable true CBD-structure. Also our proposed new paradigm depends on nebulous facts, such as ‘self-contained’ (a newly defined term having unique intended meaning). The natural and only possible state of any physical active-components is ‘self-contained’, but it is just one of countless possible states/forms for software-parts. Therefore it is essential to discover this mysterious property for identifying SCCs & conscious effort to identify each ‘SCC’ in a software-product (to design a RCC).
The productivity gains of real CDB results from less know nebulous industrial engineering factors such as (i) division-of-labor, (ii) specialization and (iii) automation, where the productivity gains are increased only by increasing the degree of one or more of these factors (since these factors always exist for any engineering activity or process to a certain degree). The real-CBD and real-components derive productivity gains for one-of-a-kind new CBD-products (either physical or software) in step-1 and step-2 of CBD-process, but not just from obvious factors such as component reuse or standardization.
These three industrial engineering factors play an important role in design and engineering of any thing (i.e. product or each of the parts). Many inventions in the industrial-engineering increased the productivity and/or reduced the complexity by increasing the degree of these factors. For example, two of the greatest inventions for increasing productivity in manufacturing (i) introduction of interchangeable parts in 1810s and (ii) Ford’s moving assembly-line a century later, able to gain such unexpected spectacular gains not by inventing these factors but by substantially increasing the degree of these there factors.
The purpose of the CBD-structure (of swappable modules/problems) is partitioning a large problem into smaller and smaller more self-contained parts (or SCCs), where each SCC can be designed and tested with high degree of autonomy (e.g. in step-1 of CBD-process). Also it is desirable to preserve this high degree of autonomy for each of the SCCs in the CBD-structure for each of the product-models for evolving the CBD-product in future (e.g. step-3 of CBD-process).
The mankind has centuries of expertise with physical-components and CBD/CBE of physical-products and have known almost every fact about them. So each and every known fact can be and must be used not only to validate/invalidate but also to refine the precision of the facts (or truths) of the each of the basic “ontological concepts” (e.g. ‘axiomatic-concepts’ or seed postulations) of existing paradigm and new paradigm (proposed in this website).
It is impossible to have an honest and productive exchange of ideas, if respected experts feel that it is arrogant or disrespectful to question the seed postulations or axiomatic concepts of the existing deeply entrenched paradigm (and conventional wisdom).
The whole proof boils down to just 2 questions/facts:
 1 Why is it not possible, if goal is discovering the unknown property of the physical active-components using a simple expression: (R && SC_Part) == (R && Active_Component) ?
 2 Both complexity and uniqueness of even a large one-of-a-kind physical-product can’t prevent its designers form achieving the CBD-structure. Why is it not possible, if goal is achieving the CBD-structure for a multiple large components constituting at least 20% of the application code of even a single large software-product, by using custom-RSCCs?
We believe that, for most of the large software applications it is possible to design about 90% of the application code as a structure equivalent to the CBD-structure by using RSCCs (that are equivalent to the physical active-components). Today it is nearly impossible to find even a single large RSCC in most of the applications in the world. Please kindly let me ask this question for argument sake: Why is it not possible to design at least 20% of the application code of at least 10% of the large applications in the world as a structure equivalent to the CBD-structure.
Isn’t it obvious answer that the software industry has no clue about basic facts or questions in the preamble at the top of this WebPages (in the context of the physical products): “What is real-CBD?” and “What are real-components for achieving the real-CBD?”.
Almost every historian of science agrees that the first real scientific revolution in the physics occurred when the error in the Geocentric model was exposed. This effort to expose the error was highly contentious and painful (e.g. Giordano Bruno was killed and Galileo Galilee was imprisoned for life by using a silly excuse of blasphemy), because this effort to expose the error was perceived by the philosophers (i.e. scientists were referred to as philosophers) as offending their common sense and insulting then deeply entrenched collective wisdom. This first paradigm shift formalized the basic scientific principles, so no subsequent paradigm shifts was contentious and painful. Many of the famous quotes of Galileo Galilee give valuable insights into the trials and struggles for exposing the error leading to the first real paradigm shift.

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