And the follow statements by your logic are also true: All programming languages are the same because they are the same concept, all cars are the same because they’re the same concept, all computers are the same because they are the same concept.
You misunderstood me, they do, and they do it today. Engineers are beginning to use induction heating to spot place a weld and then radiant heating to put it fully in place. The induction heating allows the parts to be set temporarily until they can be put together entirely. Thus both processes used to result to a single outcome, two pieces of metal pieced together (both of which produce that out come on their own too).
Therefore, it is reasonable to say the same could be true for programming principles/concepts.
“Is this page a CSV or a HTML page” is display logic, not data and belongs in the view. Interesting that you omitted my  because you couldn’t provide a reference despite calling it SOP.
They use different words because they were written years apart, but they still describe the same concept. It is possible in the English language to use different words to describe the same concept, or didn’t you know that?
Can we PLEASE get over talking semantics and “Letter of the Law”? From a high level, they are the same concept. SRP might have a slightly more narrow definition of successful compliance as it’s essentially SoC 2.0, but from a basic, mile high perspective, they are the same,
And lets be clear, tony is arguing that they are “EXACTLY THE SAME”. This is completely nonsensical when you actually look at the meanings behind them. Tony didn’t say “They are similar” or “they are related” or “one is a refinement of the other” his argument is “They are exactly the same”. If you look from a mile high “all cars are the same”. Of course on a car message board we would discuss in detail the differences between a bugatti and a mazerati. On a programming forum we should discuss the differences between programming concepts.
That’s why I’m talking about semantics and “letter of the law”. It’s similar to talking about the Ford Shelby GT350 and a base model Ford Mustang. Technically they are different cars as the trim levels, motors, etc are different. But from a layman’s term, they are still Mustangs.
In only ONE of the many quotes I’ve seen you make did he say they were EXACTLY the same. Otherwise, he just said they were the same (which in layman’s term, they essentially are).
I’m just saying let’s not lose the forest for the trees. The basic concept is if people follow EITHER SoC or SRP, they’re heading down the right track. If they follow SRP, it’s better because the more specific it is, the better it is in the long run.
Let’s take a step back then, Tony is using the idea that SoC is identical to SRP in order to say that his 9000 line class follows SRP ( http://pastebin.com/m76ZAUZc ) would you say he’s going down the right track?
Read what I wrote! They use different words to describe the same concept. This means that the concept is the same, but that the words used to describe that concept are different. The results of applying either description of that concept will be the same, so the two descriptions have the same meaning.