such physical products are not effected by spaghetti design (or code). Hence ... software to eliminate spaghetti code/design from the design and development of.
Differences between the Components & other kind of Parts
Software crisis can be solved by finding answer to these 3 questions: 1.
What is the components (e.g. objective realities such as nature or essential properties), what makes a physical part a component or what are the sticking differences between the components and other kinds of parts?
2.
What are the objective realities such as essential purpose or benefits and nature of the CBD (Component Based Design) for physical products?
3.
Why isn’t it possible to achieve real-CBD for software products (e.g. that achieves benefits for enjoying the true essence of the CBD) by inventing real-software-components,
which
are
equivalent
to
the
physical
components (e.g. by having the essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical component)?
In computer science (software) the terms “part” and “component” are used interchangeably. The software researchers and experts consider that the terms can be used interchangeably. But in reality, components are unique kind of parts. The components have certain striking differences with other kinds of parts and have certain unique set of properties (not shared by other kinds of parts). The complex and large physical products are designed and developed by using CBD (Component Based Design). And the design and development of such physical products are not effected by spaghetti design (or code). Hence it is desirable to invent real-software-components for employing real-CBD for software to eliminate spaghetti code/design from the design and development of complex or large software products. To invent real-software-components for
achieving real-CBD, it is essential to discover the striking differences and the unique set of properties that are essential for achieving the real CBD. The following presents the top 4 results returned by Google search for phrase “difference between component and part”. The web pages provide very good approximation for the unique differences between the components and other kinds of parts. This proves that it is wrong to use the term “components” for referring other kinds of parts, since other kinds of parts can’t achieve the real CBD. Real CBD required real components. Using fake components is not CBD.
Part vs Component - What's the difference? At http://wikidiff.com/component/part
As nouns the difference between part and component is that part is a fraction of a whole; a portion while component is a smaller, self-contained part of a larger entity often refers to a manufactured object that is part of a larger device.
As adjectives the difference between part and component is that part is fractional; partial while component is making up a larger whole; as a component word.
Best Answer - Chosen by Voting at https://www.italki.com/question/93865 A component normally refers to an item which is complete in itself, but also is part of something larger and more complex. It is most often used when speaking of mechanical or electrical systems, or anything that can be taken apart into different and whole pieces and put back together. A wheel is itself a complete item, but it is also a component of a car. Portion is something which is not normally whole in itself. It is taken from a
whole. If I had a loaf of bread and I gave you some of it, you would not have a loaf of bread. You would have a portion of a loaf of bread. You would also not have a component of a loaf of bread. Part is very general. It can refer to either components, portions, fractions, or even attributes. The cake is part chocolate, and part vanilla. I used two parts vanilla for every one part chocolate. The cake is an important part of the birthday party, too. Would you like part of the cake?
http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic26017.html Hello Zarinamo, A "part" is any amount of a thing that is less than the whole thing. A "component" is a distinct part of a more complex entity. Thus a pc consists of "components". An "element" is much the same as "component"; though it has a sense of "something irreducible". A "topping" is an additional layer on top of a foodstuff. There are innumerable possible toppings for pizza: bacon, chicken, beef, chorizo, mushrooms, garlic, feta cheese, etc. All 4 answers are possible, in this question: but "toppings" is the usual term for "things that are on top of pizza". Best wishes, MrP
There are many opinion in the thread for
“Parts vs components (in automotive industry)” at: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/parts-vs-components-in-automotive-industry.1900096/ I also added my description for components to the discussion as follows I like to add more information to differentiate the components from other kinds of parts: Components can be disassembled and re-assembled. For example, Component Based Products imply products such as Cars, computers or Airplanes that are built by assembling components (where the components can be disassembled and reassembled). In other perspective, components are assembled (e.g. to build a product) but other kinds of parts are not assembled but composed (e.g. to build a product).
Please
understand
the
clear
difference
between
the
words
"assembling" and "composing". Only components are assembled, where the assembling can be easily reversed by disassembling. Other kinds of parts are composed, where reversing the composition is not as simple as disassembling. For example, no kind of physical parts can be components, if using such parts for building a product is not considered component based design (e.g. the product is not built by “assembling” the parts, but by composing the parts). In yet another perspective, components are a kind of parts but not all parts are components (e.g. like the Elephants are a kind of animals, but not all animals are elephants).
