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

Uh what?!? Where did this come back to concern and responsibility? It was in regards to the lack of code needing to be written being implied… I suggest you actually read the posts Tony, I did :smile:

Here is Post #240 for reference, it has nothing to do with concern or responsibility.

Which refers to post #238

Which in turn refers to post #227

Thanks, but I did my due diligence and read post 240 before responding :wink:

So you don’t know what an analogy is then. I suggest you look it up, it’s not “switching the discussion” it’s pointing out your logic is flawed by applying the same logic to another use-case. I don’t want to talk about bananas or cakes, I’m not switching the discussion only highlighting the flaws in your argument. I can see why you don’t like me doing this though.

What ARE you talking about? The known differences between two languages such as PHP and Java are totally unrelated to the theoretical differences between two concepts which use different words to express the same meaning.

By your own definition they dont. Please stop arguing this, you’ve lost

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

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.

It is the same with SRP and SoC. You either use one of them or the other to create modular software, but never both. SRP is the same as SoC but more modern as it incorporates the notions of cohesion and coupling which did not exist when SoC was first described.

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

You either use one of them or the other to create modular software, but never both.

I don’t know what’s going on in your head now.

  1. You’re adamant that SRP and SoC are “the same thing with different names”

  2. Now you’re saying “You can apply one but not both”… if they were “the same” applying one would by definition apply the other

So which is it? Are they the same or not?

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.

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.

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?

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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?

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.

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.

…which contain similar code.

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

I was answering your point which said

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?

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?