| |
|
What is the state of Software Engineering & Why is it in Crisis?
|
|
|
What would you think of the state of zoology, if no zoologist in the world could name couple of essential characteristics of animals?
|
|
|
What would you think of the state of botany, if no botanist in the world could name couple of essential characteristics of plans (or trees)?
|
|
|
Such characteristics are essential not only to positively identify animals (or plants) but also to positively determine any other thing is not an animal (or plant), if the other thing is not an animal (or plant).
|
|
|
Answers to these questions are so basic and fundamental that, schools are teaching these characteristics to kids in high school starting from 4th grade:
http://www.slideshare.net/allsaintsscience/4th-grade-ch-2-lesson-1-what-are-plants-characteristics
& http://animals.about.com/od/animal-facts/a/animal-characteristics.htm
|
|
|
Knowing essential characteristics of physical functional components by researchers
of software components and CBD for software, is as important as knowing essential characteristics of animals by zoologists and knowing essential characteristics of plants by botanists.
Even after countless researchers of software engineering and scientists of
computer science have been doing research on software components and CBSD (Component-Based Design for Software) for over 4
decades, today no researcher of software engineering or scientist of computer
science in the world could accurately name couple of essential characteristics of physical functional
components.
|
|
|
It is impossible to invent real-software-components for achieving
real-CBD for software, without discovering right essential characteristics of ideal physical functional-components (which are capable of achieving real-CBD). Instead of discovering the essential characteristics, the researchers blindly defined characteristics of many kinds of software components (without any basis in reality or fact). In the context of physical products, no other kind of part except very special kind of part having certain unique essential characteristics can be a component.
|
|
|
No software researcher or scientist in the world could accurately name essential aspects of CBD for software, except blindly defining that using each kind of so called software components is a kind of CBD for software.
|
|
|
It is hard to believe that brilliant minds in software engineering could make such an obvious and fundamental mistake (and could not recognize or even suspect possible error after doing research on software components and CBD for software for 4 decades). But unfortunately that is the state of computer science and software engineering. The result of 4 decades research is a paradoxical paradigm complex web of countless interdependent concepts. Unfortunately experts are so much brainwashed and deeply indoctrinated in to the paradoxical paradigm, they lost their ability to even recognize simple scientific facts and processes.
|
|
|
If any one raises this error with any software experts and asks for response or essential characteristics, he gets million excuses or evasive responses except accurate essential characteristics for components or essential aspects of CBD. Of course, the excuses could be persuasive and appear to be credible because experts could back the excuses by using dozens of references (selected form the paradoxical paradigm).
|
|
|
Long time ago in 1960s, when computer science and software engineering was in formative years, early researchers defined useful software parts such as reusable and/or standardized software parts are components. No other researcher ever asked during past 4 decades, wait a minute, how could reusable and/or standardized software parts such as cement, steel, plastic, metal-alloys, paint or silicon wafers be components (and using such ingredient parts could be CBD)?
|
|
|
Every successive generation of researchers since 1960s has been sheepishly accepted those baseless myths as if they are axiomatic facts (and relying on them as proven time tested facts for advancing software engineering). This research resulted in a paradoxical paradigm having countless concepts, which are now used to defend the baseless myths (without realizing illegal circular logic).
|
|
|
The successive generations of researchers added more and more epicycles and retrograde motion without realizing initial error. Now any expert can find many references (from thousands references available to them) to prove the myth (e.g. Earth is static at the center) for snubbing the truth (e.g. Sun is at the center).
I am sure, it was impossible to find a single reference to support the fact (e.g. Sun is at the
center).
|
|
|
It reminds me Max Planck’s quite: “Science advances one funeral at a time.”. Early researchers of computer science are responsible for creating this mess in 1960s and many other researchers blindly relied on such baseless axioms and are responsible for nurturing this mess into crisis of morbid proportions since 1960s. I
am hoping the following quote is a bit less true in 21st century.
|
|
|
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. ---
Max Planck
|
|
|
It is scary thought that brilliant minds can't understand simple proof we even
teach to kids in in
high schools.
Software engineering would be better off and could make progress on right track, if
such researchers retire or stop meddling with software engineering research, until they are willing to discover essential characteristics of ideal physical functional components with open mind. This discovery not only exposes huge errors (that sidetracked the software engineering research) in basic axioms of computer science (for putting software engineering researcher on right track) but also help us invent real-software-components for achieving real-CBSD (Component-Based Design for Software).
|
|
|
New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment. ---
Max Planck
|
| |
