jobe_br

jobe_br t1_jbc7axo wrote

Reply to comment by DoktoroKiu in A group of researchers has achieved a breakthrough in secure communications by developing an algorithm that conceals sensitive information so effectively that it is impossible to detect that anything has been hidden by thebelsnickle1991

Exactly. Say, posting a selfie to Instagram. It’s on your phone and on Instagram, but if in that process a message has been encoded, nobody has anything else to hash against.

6

jobe_br t1_ir5slha wrote

Reply to comment by trekhleb in Interactive sketches to illustrate SOLID programming principles by trekhleb

You’re going to have a strained analogy either way, but you might be able to come up with something that is more person centric. Your analogy focuses on the functionality of the spoon, fork, and spork, not the person’s needs - I could argue that a single person’s concerns are encapsulated by the spork, and as such it doesn’t need to be split up. Realistically, the existence of the spork gives credence to this - it wouldn’t exist if a separate spoon and fork were superior for all user needs.

Definitely change the text, though, either way.

1

jobe_br t1_ir5rts1 wrote

Reply to comment by daedalus91 in Interactive sketches to illustrate SOLID programming principles by trekhleb

The analogy is gonna be strained, but the real problem is the way SRP is stated as “only one potential change in the software’s specification” - this is not person centric. The way OP started this is more the way SRP was initially misinterpreted as a module should do one thing and only one thing. That’s actually more the Unix cli philosophy of “do one thing and one thing well” — but it’s not SRP.

Internally, we don’t try to pre-determine if a module follows SRP, we use actual changes being made to the system to identify modules that are changing as a result of different actors/people. We then refactor a module to split it so that it once again is aligned to one axis of change.

2