[koz_]

I don't know, is it more precise to say words like "encapsulated", "testable", "mockable" and "reusable"? Aren't these all essentially the same thing? Suppose you have a class that is technically testable, because you can control all of its inputs, but it has ten thousand methods. Is it really testable if it's so poorly encapsulated?

I feel like good code is just decoupled code that lends itself to composition. Most writing about code is just about how to achieve that quality, not about identifying all these different and conflicting qualities and finding balance between them.

> “I like solution X. It decouples the error message presentation from the core logic. It’s easier to understand, because you don’t have to consider both at the same time. This separation also unlocks some testability, as we can mock either object whilst testing the other. It does come at the expense of requiring the parent object to inject the dependencies, but that’s a worthwhile tradeoff for the testability.”

Take this passage - is it saying anything other than "I identified two independently meaningful components here where you have one". What else can you do to clean up code other than separate things that don't have to go together?