The progress of pure science is discovering new truths (or
irrefutable facts) for expanding the boundaries of human knowledge. The
scientific research is nothing but pursuit of absolute truth. The scientific
foundation comprises of irrefutable scientific facts/truths, and well
tested/proven theories/concepts created by using sound reasoning, logic, which
are further supported by empirical evidence (e.g. repeatable experiments). The
scientists propose falsifiable hypotheses and each of the hypotheses is tested
against whole world of known/recorded facts, observations to falsify the
hypothesis. Any falsifiable theory/concept is not false, but it can be
falsified, if it has flaw. Any hypothesis is eventually accepted as a proven
theory or concept, when no flaw can be found.
The pure engineering is inventing (and/or innovating)
useful things (e.g. parts, and engineering infrastructure such as tools,
processes, models) by relying on the sound scientific foundation. The
components such as internal combustion engine, Jet-engine, CPU, DRAM or parts
for fiber optic networks are pure engineering inventions. Likewise, ingredient
parts such as steel, plastic, gasoline, cement, battery-parts and metals or
alloys) are pure engineering inventions. These kinds of things are continuously
optimizer for sheer engineering perfection, performance and precision. So such
things begin as pure engineering inventions and continuously evolved by mostly
pure engineering innovations.
Even an ugly looking compact internal combustion engine
looks beautify and gains admiration, if it is two times more fuel efficient at
lower price. No one cares the looks of CPU, DRAM or parts for fiber optic
networks, if they are 2-times better than nearest competition in tangible
aspects such as price & performance. The research effort and process for
inventing or innovating each of the engineering things must rely on a set of
scientific facts or concepts, and the research effort would fail, if there are
flaws in the scientific facts and concepts.
These kinds of engineering things are used to create
products used by human beings (e.g. consumer products or products that are used
by engineers). The architects and designers of such products employ engineering
and art (e.g. to suite taste or preferences of target users) to innovate user
friendly products (e.g. Cell-phones, PCs, TVs, iPod, Twitter, Whatsapp or
Facebook etc.), by relying on the things invented and innovated by employing
pure engineering (where the engineering progress was possible only due to
relying on sound scientific foundation). Although only the art is visible and
makes competitive deference in consumer products such as iPhone or Facebook,
there is lot of invisible science and engineering goes into each of the
products.
Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg are Steven Spielberg’s of
technology industry – Great story tellers - know what users or consumers want
better than the consumers themselves. There could be dozens of companies who
has engineering capability to build products such as iPhone or Facebook, but
can’t deliver on artistic taste (or creativity) and understanding of consumer
intuition (or fascination). They have great intuition, taste or charisma
to capture our imagination/fantasy. All the other competing companies have
access to same engineering and scientific knowledge, the inventors and
innovators of consumer products succeed by heavily relying on intangible
artistic taste and creativity for differentiating from competition. Even if
they encounter few technological shortcomings to achieve envisioned perfection,
I am sure most other competing companies could overcome the shortcomings (if
confronted with the same technological shortcomings).
My objectives: (1) expanding boundaries of mankind's
scientific knowledge by discovering unknown facts about the physical functional
components and CBD for physical products, and doing engineering research (by
leveraging the existing and newly discovered scientific facts) (2) to invent
new useful things such as new kind of component models and processes, and (3)
inventing basic missing pieces for software engineers such as CASE-tools &
reusable libraries.
Each of the successful products used by mankind is blend
of the three ingredients (i) scientific discoveries, (ii) engineering
inventions and (iii) art (artistic imagination) or taste (tasteful
design). In the layer-1 (scientific research), absolutely there is no room
for subjectivity. In the layer-2 (scientific research), there may be room for
small percent of subjectivity. The joy of pure engineering is creating best
algorithms such as compression, clustering and encryption or decryption, which
are tangible and can be measured against alternative inventions in key
performance aspects. In the layer-3 (research for products such as tools and
libraries for engineers) there is lot of room for intangible subjectivity and
artistic creativity (e.g. each set of consumers might like a different version
of the same product invention). There could be multiple winners, since there is
a room for subjectivity.
Each of the successful products used by mankind is blend
of the three ingredients (i) scientific discoveries, (ii) engineering
inventions and (iii) art (artistic imagination) or taste (tasteful
design). One must be clear in which layer (i.e. ingredient) one is
focusing, when one is doing research. Likewise, one must be clear which layer
is the contest, if one is discussing or debating. In the layer-1, goal is to
discover the facts that are closer to absolute truth (e.g. compared to
competition). One can invent (or innovate) better engineering things by relying
on better facts. In layer-3, there is lot of room for subjectivity, so whoever
predicts the user taste/needs (e.g. by fulfilling user
imagination/fascinations) wins.
The inventions & innovations of engineering (i.e.
layer-2) can be expanded by expanding the boundaries human knowledge in
layer-1, for example, by discovering new scientific facts. The expansions of
layer-2 allow expansion of layer-3, for example, resulting in inventions of new
products and innovations in existing products. The scientific and engineering
progress would certainly derails and end up in crisis, if there are errors in
mankind’s knowledge in layer-1.
There are huge gaps in the layer-1 (i.e. in computer
science) such as fundamental flaws in the basic axioms and concepts that are
foundation for existing software engineering paradigm. The software engineering
ended up in crisis because it has been evolving for nearly 5 decades by relying
on such flawed concepts (by assuming them to be facts). These flaws are buried
deeply under a thick layer of hundreds of books and thousands of research
articles published world over spanning 50 years and made invisible by resulted
distortion of reality and a complex paradoxical paradigm.
How could mankind invent computer chips by being clueless
about the essential properties of electrons, such as how they behave in
semi-conductor material? How could mankind invent fiber-optic networks by being
clueless about essential properties of light, such as how it behaves in strands
of optical-fibers? Likewise,
mankind can’t invent real CBD for software by being clueless about essential
properties of physical components and essential aspects of real CBD for the
physical products, since the essential properties enable the components to
achieve the real CBD having the essential aspects (e.g. 0% spaghetti code).
The order of product creation is (i) discovering the
scientific reality and facts, (ii) use the knowledge of the facts and reality
to make engineering inventions, and (iii) The products are created by using the
engineering knowledge and expertise. But computer science defined the nature of
components (and aspects of CBD for software) without any basis in reality (or
fact), and researchers of software engineering have been trying to invent CBD
for software for nearly half-a-decade by relying on erroneous scientific
foundation. Trying to invent engineering before science is like putting cart
before horse - it never works. This passionate effort of thousands of
researchers spanning over 50 years resulted in evolution of a complex
paradoxical paradigm. This is no different from trying to advance the
scientific knowledge for 1000 years, by relying on the erroneous fact that the
Earth is static at the center, which resulted in evolution of a paradoxical
paradigm that was so complex that even saying the truth “the Sun is at the
center” 500 years ago offended the common sense and insulted the deeply
entrenched conventional wisdom (of then prevailing geocentric paradigm).
My
request is just discover the scientific truths (E.g. essential aspects of real CBD
of physical products and the essential properties of physical functional
components that are enabling them to achieve the real CBD of physical products). Then rely on the scientific foundation (of truths) to
invent equivalent real software components for achieving real CBSD (CBD for
Software) having the essential aspects. Each of the definitions for each of the
kinds of software components known today has no basis in reality, so it is a
huge violation of scientific process to blindly rely on such software
components for inventing CBSD.
