What are you taking about?
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?
Programmer A might think heâs applying SoC while programmer B thinks heâs applying SRP but the results are the identical. Same concept, same result, different wording.
And now youâre backtracking. You clearly said âYou can apply one but not bothâ. Stop trying to weasel your way out, youâve lost, admit it and give up.
In your own words you have stated they are not the same thing.
Answer this:
and this:
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.
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.
Ah, that better explains your prior response. Thanks. I didnât read your prior response as that (ah interpretations received differently â see what I did there; see it? see it? 
).
Yes, just as a âhorseless carriageâ and a âmotor carâ 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 youâve said âmean exactly the same thingâ. Youâve contradicted yourself somewhere!
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 Modern computers come with the latest version as all earlier versions have been superseded just as SoC has been superseded by SRP.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.
So youâll agree that these posts:
Are utter nonsense?
Is SRP âEXACTLY THE SAME THINGâ as SoC or not?
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 theyâre 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.
I do not put display logic it the Model, it is all in the View. However, it is perfectly acceptable to have data in the Model, even meta-data, which is then passed to the View for processing.
âIs this page a CSV or a HTML pageâ is display logic, not data and belongs in the view. Interesting that you omitted my [citation needed] because you couldnât provide a reference despite calling it SOP.
Similar maybe, but NOT identical. Besides âadding new records to the databaseâ is not the same as âgenerating similar codeâ.
If each time I run the same piece of code to generate new records in the database, how does the act of running the code violate the DRY principle?
You need to repeat the process each time. This is by definition repeating yourself.
Not unless they comply with the Wikipedia definition!
Have you learnt nothing about authority?
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 didnât you know that?
Can we PLEASE get over talking semantics and âLetter of the Lawâ? From a high level, they are the same concept. SRP might have a slightly more narrow definition of successful compliance as itâs essentially SoC 2.0, but from a basic, mile high perspective, they are the same,