|
Respectful requesting help of experts in this noble effort for discovering
fundamental Truths for exposing the Errors in First Principles for software
components & CBSD
|
|
|
It is an irrefutable fact: Today the term ‘software components’ is used as a synonym to the much broader term ‘kinds of useful software parts’. This is obviously a huge error. Kindly allow me to illustrate this huge error using a simple analogy: The ‘dog’ is a specific kind of ‘pet’, so isn’t it an error to use the term ‘dog’ as a synonym to much broader term ‘pet’ (that includes many kinds of pets including a specific kind of pet – ‘dog’). 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 software parts, except the real-software-components (i.e. essential for achieving the real-CBSD). It was like going to trade show or exhibition for 'dogs' and finding about 45 kinds of cute pets (e.g. birds, cats or fish), except the dogs. Of course, each kind of pet may be cute and fun in a specific manner, but it doesn’t change the fact that none of them are dogs (if one wants a pet that loves unconditionally and is friendly, playful and intelligent).
|
|
|
It is historically well know fact that progress of any scientific or engineering filed would be derailed, if there are errors in the seed or root axioms. For example, the scientific progress was derailed for centuries until the error in the geocentric model (i.e. axiom that the Earth is static at center) was exposed. Is it hard to understand the fact: It is nearly impossible to make useful or real tangible discoveries or inventions by relying on such erroneous foundation?
|
|
|
Of course, many experts would be skeptical by assuming that the brilliant minds in the computer science could not possible make such a simple mistake in 21st century. Unfortunately the fact is that the experts not only did this mistake 45 years ago but also have been and passionately working very hard (e.g. applying brute force) to advance the software engineering by relying on this error (i.e. without even realizing the error). This brute force resulted in creating a deeply entrenched conventional wisdom and complex paradigm comprising countless axiomatic concepts (epicycles & retrograde motions), which today are used to discredit even obvious facts.
|
|
|
Stating the fact that the Sun is at the center offended common sense or insulted collective wisdom of respected scientists 500 years ago. Stating such facts usually attracts insults or disdain form other researchers, which is one of the hardest pains one must endure to expose such truth.
|
|
|
One had no problem finding 25 related works to support each of the errors (i.e. of Geocentric-paradigm), while it was impossible to find any references to support many truths (i.e. of Heliocentric-paradigm). Each of the compelling conclusions such as epicycles and retrograde motion was based on impeccable logic and persuasive reasoning backed by irrefutable empirical evidence. Any expert (e.g. astronomer) standing on the Earth (known to be static at the center) can verify retrograde motion of planets. Now we all know what went wrong. Can computer science afford to repeat the same mistake by not properly verifying such axiomatic premises?
|
|
|
Unfortunately there are no related works for using as references to support our simple three facts, since no one in the computer science see any thing wrong in calling useful reusable or standardized pars such as cement, bricks, wood and steel used in civil construction are components. In today’s software engineering paradigm, I can find 25 references to prove large reusable standardized software part that is equivalent to cement or TMT-steel is an ideal component for CBSD. It is impossible to find even a single reference (i.e. related work) to prove the obvious fact that such software part can never be a component for achieving real CBD.
|
|
|
Unfortunately the experts are assuming and insisting that the deeply entrenched collective wisdom can’t be wrong, instead of try to find any valid flaw in our discoveries (i.e. three facts). Often they deny facts by using baseless excuses or by quoting seminal works and impeccable concepts of existing paradigm created by relying on the erroneous axioms. It is like using well documented epicycles and impeccable retrograde motions to defend geocentric model (without realizing they are using invalid circular logic).
|
|
|
I decided to respectfully challenge collective wisdom of brilliant minds around the world by using this open forum, since it is nearly impossible for any one expert or a small group of experts in isolation to confidently accept that there is an error in seed postulations of such an undisputed successful paradigm that perceived to be comprising countless seminal works and impeachable concepts, which are deeply entrenched in to their collective wisdom for decades.
|
|
|
If large enough number of experts aware of the possibility of such errors and given sufficient time to exhaust all the unsubstantiated excuses, justifications and invalid circular-logics to defend the error, the experts left with no other option except accept the error.
|
|
|
Many experts use unsubstantiated excuses
and/or invalid circular logic to defend current paradigm, for example, by using one or more concepts and works that are directly or indirectly derived from the erroneous assumption that ‘software components’ are nothing but any one of the kinds of given ‘useful software parts’. Using any such concepts and works is no different from using countless epicycles & retrograde motions to defend the geocentric-paradigm.
|
|
|
Any software expert may kindly participate in this noble effort by investigating
simple 3 facts and let other experts (e.g. friends or colleagues) aware of the possible errors by referring this website. We humble requesting such help to expose the error & it shall be much appreciated.
|
