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

[TomB]

@tony_marston404

I never redefined any terms, I merely take one of the many existing opinions/interpretations of what a particular term means and apply that interpretation. The fact that some of these terms have so many interpretations - and in many cases contradictory interpretations - just proves that these terms, concepts or principles were so badly written in the first place.

Robert C. Martin while describing SRP said

Classes should have a small number of instance variables. Each of the methods of a class
should manipulate one or more of those variables. In general the more variables a method
manipulates the more cohesive that method is to its class. A class in which each variable is
used by each method is maximally cohesive.
To restate the former points for emphasis: We want our systems to be composed of
many small classes, not a few large ones. Each small class encapsulates a single responsibility,
has a single reason to change, and collaborates with a few others to achieve the
desired system behaviors.

and you have said your 120 method 50 variable class conforms to SRP. You have redefined SRP to try to claim your existing code conforms to it.

Robert C. Martin says:

One of the problems with implementing an abstract class with inheritance is that the derived class is so tightly coupled to the base class

You said:

@tony_marston404

Coupling only exists when one module calls another, not when one class inherits from another.

and

it is quite wrong to say that inheritance automatically produces tight coupling.

When I asked whether he was wrong or you were, you said:

He is.

You redefined coupling (and you still don’t understand it which is why you don’t get DI, SRP or other related concepts).

You have said:

@tony_marston404

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

Nowhere else does it say this and the fact that wikipedia has different articles describing different concepts is a nail in the coffin: You have redefined SRP and SoC.

So stop claiming you haven’t redefined the concepts, it’s practically all you do.

@tony_marston404

Have you ever worked on an enterprise application which has 300+ database tables, 450+ relationships and 2,500+ user transactions?

Yes but it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand. I’ve worked on a system with thousands of tables and billions of records, but it just doesn’t matter because this discussion has turned into one about the theory and how you don’t understand it.

@tony_marston404

It is NOT only me who has a different opinion. The internet is full of articles which express different opinions. Just because a few individuals group together and agree on a particular opinion or interpretation does not mean that the whole universe is then bound by that decision.

and we’re back to this nonsense. You don’t understand what authority is and what a primary source is. Please go and read about peer review. anyone can put things online, from well known professionals like Uncle Bob to enthusiastic amateurs such as yourself. This is preceicly why arbitrary websites are not authoratitive. Go get some sources from academic journals that back up your claims and we’ll talk. The problem is you cannot because they don’t exist (or you take one line and stretch it so far beyond its context it loses all meaning, or illogically infer that when someone says “You can use X for Y” that it means “You cannot use X for anything else”).

@tony_marston404

That’s a ridiculous argument. I am limiting myself to words in the English language which are now used in the world of software development. If the English dictionary states that “component” means “constituent part” then it is totally WRONG for you to say that in software development “component” does NOT mean “constituent part”.

This is just a bizarre non-sequitur. You’re the one who said “Software component = ONE CLASS”. Software component has a specific meaning in computing which has no relation to classes.

@tony_marston404

People with academic qualifications who work in an academic environment can rarely compete with practical people with experience in a commercial environment. Theories are useless unless they have practical applications in the real world.

So you’ve got zero formal qualifications, you’re entirely self-taught, mostly work alone so don’t even have other developers to discuss potential solutions with and you’ve consistently demonstrated you don’t understand several fundamental concepts which inevitably leads to a misinterpretation of more advanced concepts.

Now, the latter is understandable given the former points, without any proper training, misunderstaning is almost inevitable given the complexity of the subject at hand. What I don’t understand is why you think you know better? You just aren’t qualified to tell genuine experts they’re wrong. I point you to your post where I asked “Is uncle bob wrong or are you?” and you said “He is” and everywhere where’ you’ve argued against academic journals and other primary sources (high end developers at google/microsoft/apple/ibm).

Tony: Why should anyone listen to anything you say? You have exactly zero authority and you’ve proved that you have a lack of real understanding. I ask again, why are you here and what are you trying to prove?

@tony_marston404

I have never said that I am right and everyone else is wrong, I have simply stated that my methods are different yet they still work. I am merely offering a different opinion but it is YOU who keeps saying that I am not allowed to be different.

There’s “being different” and there’s redefining industry standard, academically recognised terms to fit your needs and then trying to pass off your awful code as “Well written”. This is the problem, having a discussion is fine but actively pushing erroneous information is not helpful to that discussion it’s detrimental.