|
||||||
| Exposing Basic Errors in Basic Axioms is a Noble Cause |
| I believe, it was a noble cause to expose the error in the Geocentric model (scientists erroneously concluded that the Earth is static at the center). This error derailed scientific progress for centuries. Exposing this error put the scientific progress back on the right track, for example, resulted in basic discoveries such as Newton’s laws of motion, Universal Gravity and timeless invention of calculus essential for providing mathematical proof for the laws. If exposing the above error was a noble cause, exposing the following error is also a noble cause: |
| Today software industry erroneously concluded that they already invented many kinds of software components and many kinds of CBSDs (Component-Based Designs for Software). Each of the known kinds of software components are no more than software parts having a certain defined set of useful properties. Hence all of them are fake components. Flapping fake wings (i.e. using fake components) is not flying (i.e. real CBD). Therefore the term ‘software component’ is the most misused or misleading and abused term in the software industry. |
| Irrefutable facts about current state of CBSD: The software industry erroneously defined many kinds of software components (or component models), where each kind of software component is a kind of useful software parts having certain useful properties (or software parts conform to a component model). Then the software industry further extended the error by defining many kinds of CBSDs relying on many kinds of fake components, where each kind of CBSD is defined as using one or more kinds of fake components (or fake component models). |
| All the assumptions have no basis in reality. In fact, many of the known facts and observations about the physical components and CBD for the physical products contradict the assumptions. 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 (e.g. CBSD), such as riding a horse (a kind of component) is a kind of flying (a kind of CBSD), riding a boat (a kind of airplane) is a kind of flying or riding a car (another kind of airplane/component) is yet another kind of flying (or CBSD)? |
| The above error preventing the discovery of real components and have been derailing advancement of the real CBSD for decades. Hence this error has been costing billions of dollars each year, which is well known in the industry as the software crisis. I believe I can provide conclusive proof, if a team of experts spare few hours and gives me an opportunity. |
| The above is an absurd-lie: The mankind knows just one kind of real CBD for the physical products. There is only one very special kind of physical parts (having very unique essential properties) that are capable of achieving the real CBD, where the very special kind of physical parts are known as components. For example, mankind knows just one kind of real flying and to grasp what is flying, any one can observe objects that are flying in the sky such as birds, airplanes or spacecrafts. Likewise to grasp only one possible kind of CBD for the physical products, one can observe physical products that are built by using real components and component hierarchies. |
| Another fact is, no other kind of physical parts is capable of achieving the real CBD. So it is an absurd lie to argue any kind of parts having certain useful properties is a kind of components. The software industry extended the mistake by defining many kinds of CBSD, where each kind of CBSD is using a kind of fake components. There is no other way to justify the above foolish errors except by stubbornly arguing that it is impossible to invent real software components that are equivalent to the physical components and are capable of achieve the CBD for software, which is equivalent to the CBD for the physical products. |
| Many experts unfortunately are using this baseless argument to justify the errors, while refusing to offer any valid proof or justification to support their strong conviction. I found no evidence to indicate that any one ever tried to find valid evidence either to support the assumptions or to expose the errors. Having been searching for over a decade on the web, I am unable to find that, any expert ever even tried to discover accurate descriptions for the components or CBD for physical products, which is the essential first step for providing such evidence. |
| Unfortunately the software industry sheepishly following the absurd assumptions made in sixties, when the computer science was in infancy. This assumption may be acceptable when assembly languages or FORTRAN were leading edge technologies and structured programming principles were just beginning to evolve. It is practically impossible for those early programming languages to build real software components. Invention of OOP (Object Oriented Programming) and advancements of the OOP changed that. But unfortunately by then those erroneous assumptions spread like a wild fire and deeply entrenched into the collective wisdom of the software industry as self-evident facts of nature. |
| We already obtained first patent for the real software components (having essential properties of the physical components) that are capable of achieving the real CBD for software (equivalent to the CBD for physical products). We are eager to demonstrate hundreds of real software components and hierarchies of real software components. Unfortunately many experts refuse to even look at our discoveries, by giving silly excuses that software is unique or different. |
| These errors derailed the advancements in the software engineering. It is impossible to put software engineering back on the right track without exposing the errors. Unfortunately it is impossible to expose the error, unless the experts willing to defend their assumptions backed by facts, observations and rational reasoning. Alternatively, we request them to find a flaw in my facts, observations and sound rational reasoning. Our proof is not only based on facts, observations and sound rational reasoning, but also based on hundreds of real software components and real CBD for software (which we are eager to demonstrate). |
|
||||||||
