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.
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.
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.
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.
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?