Componentology is a new scientific field that studies all aspects of the reality of physical components and parts (e.g., their nature and essential properties); the anatomy, structure, design, and construction of physical CBPs (Component-Based Products); as well as the methods and mechanisms of real CBE (Component-Based Engineering).
Zoology is a branch of science that studies animals, while botany is a branch of science that studies plants. Chemistry is the branch of science that studies chemical elements, compounds, and matter. Similarly, Componentologyis a new branch of science that studies physical parts & components, all aspects of CBE, and the anatomy and construction of physical CBPs.
The proven and most effective way to study, understand, document, and communicate is through proper classification and nomenclature for all types of parts. For example, biological sciences employ taxonomic classifications to classify species of plants and animals in order to study them systematically (by formulating nomenclature using precisely defined terminology and creating a well-defined vocabularyfor organizing the knowledge), while chemistry employs various kinds of classifications such as organic, inorganic, acids, bases, and columns of the periodic table.
An essential part of systematic scientific investigation and study (of diverse kinds of physical things such as animals, trees, bacteria,and physical parts), and in acquiring scientific knowledge and objective understanding, is classification; such as taxonomic classification using precisely defined terms for nomenclature, which is vital not only for unambiguous understanding but also for clear documentation and communication in order to prevent misunderstandings and subjective interpretations of the terms.
There is no room in science for subjective terminology or ambiguity. It is essential to document and communicate scientific understanding and descriptions clearly, using well-defined terminology to avoid any possibility of misinterpretation or ambiguity. If Componentology already existed on Earth, it would be nearly impossible to do so without creating proper scientific classification using well-defined and consistent terminology for nomenclature. There is no evidence for such scientific classifications and consistent definitions in the terminology for software engineering. Since Componentology does not exist today, we decided to create it.
Components are the lifeblood and backbone of the modern industrial age, particularly when designing and building large or complex products such as airplanes, cars, and computers. It is impossible to even imagine the industrial age without components and component-based inventions and innovations. So, we want to systematically study components to be able to improve them based on scientific understanding and insights, in order to make more innovations for example.
We want to usher in a similar revolution in software engineering by inventing real software components (which are equivalent to physical components) and using them to build CBPs (which are anatomically equivalent to physical CBPs) based on scientific understanding and insights accumulated from the scientific research for Componentology.
It is indisputable that it is impossible to address any scientific or engineering problem by relying on biased & flawed assumptions, myths, and misconceptions. Sadly, software engineering committed this fatal mistake of relying on 55-year-old flawed assumptions and myths (i.e., about so-called software components and CBE) to address problems such as the software crisis. We decided to create “Componentology” since it is impossible to address this fatal mistake (of the creation of a flawed paradigm) without acquiring and relying on valid scientific understanding, descriptions, and insights.
Since its inception around 55 years ago, software engineering has relied on flawed assumptions, biases, myths, and misconceptions about so-called software components, CBPs, and CBEs for software, resulting in the creation of the software crisis. We decided not to follow the software community like sheep; instead of relying on the prevailing mythology, we decided to create a new branch of science (i.e., Componentology) in order to rely on science (i.e., scientific understanding and insights) in addressing software problems.
All we have been insisting on is that engineering research must be conducted by relying on scientific knowledge, understanding, and insights about real components, real CBPs, and real CBE paradigm, rather than relying on biased assumptions, myths, and misconceptions about so-called software components and the fake CBE-paradigm. It is a huge mistake to conduct engineering research based on biased assumptions, myths, and misconceptions - this is one of the most basic principles of engineering research.
It is not disrespectful to humbly request that engineering researchers rely on science rather than mythology. Unfortunately, the software community is offended by our advocacy of acquiring and utilizing scientific knowledge and understanding (i.e. Componentology) rather than relying on 55-year-old flawed pre-paradigmatic assumptions (i.e. myths about so-called components and Component-Based Products) when conducting engineering research for Component-Based Engineering of software.
It is impossible to solve the infamous software crisis and the dreadful problem of spaghetti code without the scientific and theoretical foundation that only “Componentology” can provide. "Componentology" and associated nomenclature is the only scholarly way for scientists and researchers to engage in scientific discourse, and valid observations & evidence accumulated through it should be used to support their assertions. I am confident that “Componentology” opens the door for inventions and innovations of new kinds of useful parts and components, as well as methods and mechanisms for utilizing them to build software products, which together will usher in a software revolution.
Any discipline of science or engineering will inevitably end up in a crisis (resulting in an illusion or paradox) if it uses and relies on flawed assumptions (e.g., Earth is at the center) as core first principles. It is basic common sense that it is impossible to address any technological problem without using and relying on valid scientific knowledge. If valid scientific knowledge which is necessary for addressing a problem is not already available, it is impossible to address the problem without acquiring valid scientific knowledge.
To address one of the greatest technological challenges, known as the software crisis, which has been eluding the greatest minds of software for decades, would you rather rely on scientific knowledge, such as Componentology, or on 55-year-old biased assumptions and misconceptions about so-called software components, where the biased assumptions and misconceptions created the software crisis in the first place?
If there is no botany and it is useful to know about trees, then it is desirable to create botany. Similarly, if there is no bacteriology and it is useful to know about bacteria, then it is desirable to create bacteriology. As there is no Componentology (and necessary nomenclature) and we realized that it is vital for software, we decided to create it.
Knowledge of zoology, comprising descriptions, theories, and understanding, must be consistent with observations and evidence about animals. Similarly, knowledge of botany must be consistent with observations and evidence about trees. Likewise, knowledge of Componentology must be consistent with observations and evidence about components and CBE. However, prevailing descriptions, theories, and understanding of components, CBPs, and CBE contradict observations and evidence about them, making them invalid and an illusion.
Scientific evidence and objective observations accumulated for Componentology conclusively prove that the prevailing dominant paradigm (e.g., comprising descriptions, concepts, and understandings of components, CBPs, and CBE) is an illusion and mythology. For engineering research to address technological problems such as spaghetti code or the software crisis, it is common sense to rely on science rather than mythology, particularly if mythology is responsible for creating the problems.
Componentology must be created to provide a theoretical foundation for software engineering research, as there is no scientific study of real components and CBEs. What is currently known about components/CBEs, and being taught to students and relied upon, is incorrect and an illusion, similar to the 16th-century geocentric illusion. Componentology is the heliocentric reality of software, in comparison to the geocentric illusion.
Today, pseudoscientific nonsense about so-called software components, CBPs, and CBEs for software is widely promoted to the public and taught to impressionable computer science students as science. The best way to expose this prevalent pseudoscientific hokum is to create genuine science (i.e., Componentology) that adheres to well-established scientific principles in order to gain objective understanding and scientific insights about their physical or real-world counterparts.
Humanity's knowledge of trees (or bacteria) would be pseudoscientific nonsense if there were no branch of science, such as botany (or bacteriology), that studied them, or if understanding, descriptions, or theories in the knowledge were not consistent with observations of trees (or bacteria). Likewise, if there is no branch of science to study components, CBPs, and CBEs, our knowledge of them, such as descriptions, understandings, and theories, must be nothing more than pseudoscience. The prevalent flawed descriptions, understandings, and myths about components, CBPs, and CBEs prove that there is no branch of science, such as Componentology, that studies them.
The widely prevalent voodoo science has cost trillions to the global economy and has contributed to hundreds of deaths or injuries. If voodoo scientists promoting voodoo science are not stoped, it will cause many more fatalities. Everyone has the right and freedom to contribute to science, including non-whites, without violating established scientific principles. The scientific method does not reserve any special rights or privileges for any particular race to create a new branch of science, even if racists (e.g., at NSF.gov, ACM.org, or NITRD.gov) disagree. When clear evidence is provided, it is unethical, immoral, and illegal in civilized nations to ignore or suppress it and continue to justify or contribute to the spread of voodoo science. If it can cause death or injury to consumers, it is a violation of consumer product safety laws to spread voodoo science, even after being informed.