Would you agree this is the definition of a PHP framework?

[TomB]

Incorrect. I am saying that SRP redefines SoC by including references to cohesion and coupling. It is a better definition of the same concept, not a definition of a different concept.

This makes zero sense at all. They’re the same but they’re different… right… If they have a different (“better”) definition they are… different… otherwise the definition would be the same and the concept would be the same.

You’re honestly saying that two things with different definitions are the same?

you should be a theologian, you’d be able to doublethink your way into solving the holy trinity problem.

[tony_marston404]

tony_marston404:
That’s a ridiculous argument. It is simply not enough to create classes at random without considering cohesion and coupling. Good design requires the creation of classes which exhibit high cohesion and low coupling. SoC did not mention cohesion and coupling because those two terms did not exist when SoC was devised. SRP took care of that by combining those three terms into a single principle. Thus SRP is used INSTEAD OF SoC, not AS WELL AS.

Which further proves my point. If SRP is used instead of SoC then they are different concepts otherwise nothing would have needed to be replaced and we’d still be using SoC.

It proves nothing. Whether you follow a process with the label SoC or the process with the label SRP they are still the SAME process. SRP is a later version of SoC, but it is still the same concept which produces the same result.

[TomB]

It proves nothing. Whether you follow a process with the label SoC or the process with the label SRP they are still the SAME process. SRP is a later version of SoC, but it is still the same concept which produces the same result.

Please answer this tony: How can combining 3 different things together result in something identical to one of those 3 things?

They’re the same but they’re different. So Windows 95 is the same as Windows 7 because one is a “later version” of the other, right?

[tony_marston404]

These are display variables and belong in the view. Broken SRP, broken SoC. Well done.

I disagree. They are rules which can only be set in the Model but which are passed to the View for execution. This is SOP in the programming world, and has been for decades.

[TomB]

I disagree. They are rules which can only be set in the Model but which are passed to the View for execution. This is SOP in the programming world, and has been for decades.

[citation needed]

Nobody has ever advocated putting display logic/data in the model.

[tony_marston404]

tony_marston404:
According to your logic if I use the “Add Customer” transaction 100 times to add 100 different customers to my database then I have violated the DRY principle simply because I have used the same transaction 100 times. Do you now how ridiculous that sounds?

If it’s generating similar code 100 times then yes, it is violating DRY. Just because you automated the repetition and didn’t have to type it out repeatedly doesn’t mean there isn’t repeated code, it’s just automatically generated repeated code.

It is NOT repeated code! The same code is run many times, but each time it produces a different result by creating new records on the database or new files on disk.

The DRY principle is only violated when you have identical blocks of code appearing in multiple places in the same piece of software.

[TomB]

It is NOT repeated code! The same code is run many times, but each time it produces a different result by creating new records on the database or new files on disk.

…which contain similar code.

[mAAdhaTTah]

I disagree with “is required to be written by hand” as although it is required, with the Radicore framework it is generated and not written by hand.

You are welcome to prefer your approach. You are not welcome to redefine words. Laravel, Symphony, et al are frameworks.

[tony_marston404]

If you bothered reading the other posts in this discussion you will se plenty of places where inferences are made all over the place such as “the article switches between using concern and responsibility, but as it does not expressly say that they are the same I can only conclude that they are different”.

Uh what?!? Where did this come back to concern and responsibility?

I was answering your point which said

I believe you said it was implied, and therefore, it isn’t specifically stated and thus at the interpretation that one chooses to accept of said content?

Anything which is not specifically stated can be implied, and different people can interpret what has actually been stated in different ways with the result that they produce different implications.

My reference to “responsibility” and “concern” was to point out that as that article switched between the two terms without explicitly saying that they were different that it led me to believe that they had the same meaning. Others is this discussion came to a different conclusion - because the article did not explicitly say that they were the same they deduced that they were different.

Do you see the different interpretations of the same text? Whose interpretation would you say is the most reasonable?

[TomB]

Just to be clear, you have previously stated that

Are today's major frameworks capable of enterprise capable applications?

Soc (Separation of Concerns) and SRP (Single Responsibility Principle) mean exactly the same thing.

Are today's major frameworks capable of enterprise capable applications?

What a useless definition! Every programmer I know considers a "separate concern" and a "single responsibility" to mean exactly the same thing. How are they different? If you read Robert C. Martin's article at http://blog.8thlight.com/uncle-bob/2014/05/01/Design-Damage.html you will see the following: My framework implements the 3 Tier Architecture which has all the GUI code in the Presentation layer, all the business rules in the Business layer, and all the database code in the Dat…

Would you agree this is the definition of a PHP framework?

Excuse me but SRP and SoC most certainly ARE the same. In Uncle Bob's article http://blog.8thlight.com/uncle-bob/2014/05/08/SingleReponsibilityPrinciple.html he says the following: Here he is definitely saying that "separation of responsibilities" is EXACTLY the same as "separation of concerns"

And you’re now saying that

Incorrect. I am saying that SRP redefines SoC by including references to cohesion and coupling. It is a better definition of the same concept, not a definition of a different concept.

SoC and SRP have different definitions (if it’s been redefined, the definition has changed)

If they have two different definitions how can they mean EXACTLY the same thing?

[tony_marston404]

How can combining 3 different things together result in something identical to one of those 3 things?

What are you taking about?

[TomB]

What are you taking about?

You are saying that SRP is SoC + Coupling + Cohesion:

They are the same concept. Soc has been superseded by SRP as it now includes “cohesion” and “coupling”. It is simply a better definition of the same concept.

How can combining SoC, Coupling and Cohesion result in SoC?

Your argument is:

SoC + Coupling + Cohesion == SRP

and

SRP == SoC

So,

SoC + Coupling + Cohesion == SoC

How is this possible unless coupling and cohesion have no meaning?

[tony_marston404]

Now you’re saying “You can apply one but not both”…

Programmer A might think he’s applying SoC while programmer B thinks he’s applying SRP but the results are the identical. Same concept, same result, different wording.

[TomB]

Programmer A might think he’s applying SoC while programmer B thinks he’s applying SRP but the results are the identical. Same concept, same result, different wording.

And now you’re backtracking. You clearly said “You can apply one but not both”. Stop trying to weasel your way out, you’ve lost, admit it and give up.

In your own words you have stated they are not the same thing.

Answer this:

Would you agree this is the definition of a PHP framework?

You are saying that SRP is SoC + Coupling + Cohesion: How can combining SoC, Coupling and Cohesion result in SoC? Your argument is: SoC + Coupling + Cohesion == SRP and SRP == SoC So, SoC + Coupling + Cohesion == SoC How is this possible unless coupling and cohesion have no meaning?

and this:

Would you agree this is the definition of a PHP framework?

Just to be clear, you have previously stated that And you’re now saying that SoC and SRP have different definitions (if it’s been redefined, the definition has changed) If they have two different definitions how can they mean EXACTLY the same thing?

[tony_marston404]

tony_marston404:
Your analogy is flawed, Either technique can be used to heat water but you only ever use one of them, never both. They are simply different ways to heat water.

No, I’m fairly certain I can come up with a few reasons why I’d want to use both in an experiment/application. The way heat is applied can affect the outcome, ask any Chemist out there.

The fact that a scientist may try that as an academic experiment is irrelevant. Nobody in the real world would do that. For the same reason no programmer would apply SRP to achieve one set of results and then apply SRP to achieve a different set of results.

[tony_marston404]

tony_marston404:
Incorrect. I am saying that SRP redefines SoC by including references to cohesion and coupling. It is a better definition of the same concept, not a definition of a different concept.

What?

So the definition of SoC does not include cohesion and coupling. K, got that.SRP does include cohesion and coupling in it.

How are the two identical again?

They both describe how to take a piece of software and break it down into smaller units, with the smallest being a class. They both say that separating out the logic for the GUI, business rules and database access should be the outcome of the exercise. In that respect they represent the same concept, the only difference being that they describe it using different words.

[cpradio]

My reference to “responsibility” and “concern” was to point out that as that article switched between the two terms without explicitly saying that they were different that it led me to believe that they had the same meaning. Others is this discussion came to a different conclusion - because the article did not explicitly say that they were the same they deduced that they were different.

Ah, that better explains your prior response. Thanks. I didn’t read your prior response as that (ah interpretations received differently – see what I did there; see it? see it? ).

[tony_marston404]

You’re honestly saying that two things with different definitions are the same?

Yes, just as a “horseless carriage” and a “motor car” are different ways to describe the same concept. Do you like that analogy?

[TomB]

Yes, just as a “horseless carriage” and a “motor car” are different ways to describe the same concept. Do you like that analogy?

But they have the same definition. You have said that:

SoC does not include Coupling or Cohesion
SRP includes coupling and cohesion

SRP is a redefiniiton of SoC (they have different definitions)… but somehow they are the same thing… in fact you’ve said “mean exactly the same thing”. You’ve contradicted yourself somewhere!

[tony_marston404]

They’re the same but they’re different. So Windows 95 is the same as Windows 7 because one is a “later version” of the other, right?

They are the same in that they are both operating systems. Modern computers come with the latest version as all earlier versions have been superseded just as SoC has been superseded by SRP. They are different versions of the same concept, not different concepts.