Wednesday, January 8, 2014

If flapping fake wings can’t be flying, how could using fake software components be CBD for software?

Would any one accept an absurd definition that “Flying is not much more than flapping wings”? Any one who has seen birds and airplanes flying in the sky shall never accept such insane definition. Those who don’t know ‘what is flying’ could discover ‘real-flying’ by observing the aerobatic maneuvers of birds and airplanes flying in the sky. Doesn’t humankind know ‘what is CBD of the physical products’? Those who don’t know ‘what is CBD’ could discover ‘real-CBD’ by observing the design and development of a first working model of a complex one-of-a-kind product (e.g. experimental jet-fighter or spacecraft) or a unique product being invented newly (e.g. artificial kidney).

It is impossible to accept absurd definition “CBD for software is not much more than using so called software components”, if one discovers inherent nature of real-CBD (e.g. essential aspects uniquely and universally shared by design of any physical CBD-products). Our website can help researchers discover ‘what is CBD’, by briefly illustrating essential aspects uniquely and universally shared by design of any physical CBD-product (e.g. CBD-structure & CBD-process). There is no valid reason, why design of complex software must be different from design of a first working model of any complex new or one-of-a-kind physical product, once researchers discover essential characteristics uniquely and universally shared by the physical functional components for inventing real-software-components that are equivalent to the physical functional components by having the essential characteristics.

What is CBD all about and are there any essential recognizable aspects for CBD? For example, let me provide an essential recognizable aspect: Cost of any complex CBD product can be disassembled or reassembled under 3% of the total cost of designing and building all the components and the product. Any large component (even complex component having 100s of sub-components) can be located and disassembled and re-assembled as a unit, for example, to replace by a better component or to redesign and test the component individually outside (e.g. to improve the component little-by-little in step-1 or step-3 of CBD-process).

It is not necessary that even a single large component in the component hierarchy need to be reusable, standardized or have any other properties erroneously attributed to so called software components exist today. More useful CBD-facts about the design of physical CBD-products and CBD-rules for achieving real-CBD for software equivalent to the CBD of physical products is provided at as 3-CBD-rules:

Could any one prove there is no error in the following unsubstantiated seed postulation on which researchers of computer science and software engineering have been relying for four decades for inventing Component-Based Design for advancing software engineering: Today the term ‘software components’ is used as synonym to certain kinds of “software parts”, where each kind of so called software-components by definition (or convention) is a kind of useful parts either (1) Having certain useful properties (e.g. reusable or standardized etc.) or (2) Conforming to a so called Software Component-Model. It is impossible to find any evidence that any one else ever suspected that there could be an error or dared to question its validity.

This unsubstantiated axiomatic postulation (i.e. a mere assumption or myth) resulted in many kinds of so called software components without any consideration to facts or basis in reality. Any baseless axiomatic assumption, if it can be proved an error, is a myth. Also resulted in many kinds of CBSDs (i.e. CBD for Software), where each kind of CBSD is blindly defined as using one or more kinds of so called components (or so called component models).

When clearly informed, how could any responsible researcher or scientist ignore and do nothing, when knowing tens of thousands of researchers might be wasting their efforts for advancing the software engineering by relying on a mere myth (i.e. by erroneously believing that it is a fact). The cost of this error in past two decades must be in trillions of dollars and no meaningful progress in productivity of software engineering shall be possible until this error is exposed.

Of course, an expert doesn’t need to take our word of an unknown researcher from no where, but don’t they have intellectual curiosity and common sense. Isn’t too much to request for using simple reasoning and common sense: Isn’t it a huge error to knowingly rely on such baseless myth for scientific progress, if he can’t find evidence that it is not a myth? Furthermore our website provided ample evidence to prove possible error, which is more than enough to compel any responsible researcher to ascertain its validity (by analyzing all the irrefutable facts & valid observations).

If given opportunity, I can provide conclusive proof, where the proof is already provided openly in our website for any expert to validate. It is extremely disappointing, if no one cares about such absurd errors or it is impossible to make the responsible people aware of such absurd errors (costing hundreds of billions), for example, if they try to evade (e.g. by using silly excuses or pretend to be busy) by feeling that it is some else’s responsibility. When we successful with the help of researchers having intellectual curiosity, true love and passion for our beloved computer science, do such organizations deserve licenses to our patented Tools and inventions when, if they feel that it must be done on some else’s dime and they feel entailed to such inventions?

Many Indian software companies feel they can infringe, plagiarize, pirate or steel intellectual property, once it is proven on some else’s expense. If I have a say or able to convince other stakeholders, few companies run by such arrogant CEOs and top management would never get licenses. I feel, people who don’t feel passionately about advancing technology don’t deserve to be in technology business. What is the incentive for research for advancing the science and technology, if few people invest and take big risks and others can steel intellectual property for free?

How is it possible for any researcher to bring a disruptive discovery (which could add trillions to world economy) to notice of responsible researchers? Mankind already wasted few decades by relying on this myth. Today billions of dollars is being invested in research for advancing computer science and software engineering. Large portion of this money and effort of thousands of researchers is going to be wasted, if no one tries to validate the above myth and continue to rely on the myth (by believing that it is a fact). 


  1. I always wondered, what would be the benefit of the invention of real-software components in next two decades. What would be the lost opportunity cost, if we were to fail exposing the error in the root postulation? What is the lost opportunity cost of real-software-components and real-CBD for software? Usually lost opportunity cost would be multiples of the market size of the invention. For example, market size for semiconductor-chips is about US$350 billion dollars, but if the semiconductor-chips were not invented, the world GDP would be less by US$ 7 trillion dollars (so the US$ 7 trillion is lost opportunity costs). For example, today market size for Flash memory is US$25 billion dollars, but if the Flash memory were not invented lost opportunity costs would be about US$ 75 billion. For example, cool things such as smart-phones, digital-cameras, pen-drives or iPads wouldn’t be so cool, if Flash memories were not yet invented.

    The lost opportunity cost of real-software-components for achieving real-CBD must be at least two times of the lost opportunity costs of Flash memory, so would be between US$150 to US$225 billion a year. The size of the world wide software industry is over a trillion dollars per year. The real components not only increase the productivity and quality by many folds but also allow building more complex software than practical today for addressing more complex problems. Furthermore, the cost and time required to make medium to large changes to large software systems built by assembling real-software-components would be one-fifth to one-tenth, which makes the software systems much more useful and much more responsive to changing unique needs.

    The benefits of CBD for software would be proportional to the size and complexity of the applications, so large and complex systems benefit substantially more from CBD. So conservatively 50% (i.e. US$500 billion) of the software industry deals with large or complex software, which could enjoy substantial benefits from the invention of real-software-components and real-CBSD. The remaining 50% (i.e. US$500 billion) of the software industry may be dealing with simple software such as web-pages or small applets and medium size applications (e.g. under 25,000 lines of code), which could also proportionally benefit from real-CBSD. Considering all these and other factors make my estimation for lost opportunity costs of between US$150 to US$225 billion a year would be very conservative. In fact, I believe it would be over US$500 billion a year. That is, if mankind were to invent the real-software-components a decade ago, the world GDP would be at least half-trillion higher today. If mankind were to invent the real-software-components a couple of decades ago, the world GDP would be higher by at least one-trillion today.

    These are conservative estimations by assuming normal improvements and innovations but assuming no major discoveries would be made. An error in any root postulation derails real scientific progress, and exposing the error opens the door for real progress. It is hard to predict what kinds of treasures lay ahead in the real path of true scientific progress until opening the door of truth for entering and start exploring the path for true scientific progress. Even greatest minds Kepler & Galileo (who opened the door of truth: Heliocentrism, by exposing flawed Geocentrism) didn’t imagine Gravity or laws of motion; otherwise must have speculated the reason for the planets circling the Sun might be Attraction. In case of such breakthrough inventions, the resultant size of the GDP must be few trillions more than estimated.

    If I am right in these estimations (which I am sure is conservative), can we afford to fail in exposing the error in the seed postulations of existing software engineering paradigm (which quickly leads to the inventions of real-CBSD)?

  2. A fun fact (sort of): A trillion dollars earns interest of US$100 million a day, at the rate of interest of 3.65%. That is annual interest on trillion dollars (or 1000 billion) would be 36.5 billion (36,500 million), and we can calculate one day return by dividing 36,500 million by 365 days in the year. Of course, no bank would pay daily compound interest, so the interest rate must be about 3.79% to get US$100 million per each day.