One can always look as global variables equivalent to a context object that’s is passed in every function. It’s just a syntactic difference whether one constructs such data structure or uses it implicitly via globals.
replyWhat I am getting at is that when one has such gigantic data structure there is no separation of concerns.
Does one need one's separation of concerns if one's concerns shouldn't be separated in the in the first place?
replyAnytime one has access to a database one has access to one large global data structure that one can access from anywhere is a program.
This same concept goes for one's global state in one's game if one is making a game.
Separation of concerns is still a valid paradigm with a single global datastructure like GUI, Microservice, Database and etc. In such situation one can still seperate concerns via composing the global datastructure from a smaller units and define methods with respect to thoose smaller units. In that way one does not need to wonder whether there are some unattended side effects when calling a function that mutates the state.
replySeems like one is backpedaling because one was just talking about one's separation of one's concerns and now one is defending one's separation of concerns with respect to one's global data structure.
replyI still firmly believe that one ctx object and hundred functions/methods is as bad as programming with plain variables defined in the global scope. If the ctx is composed from smaller data structures with whom the functions are defined, then all is good. This is the opposite of the rule.
replyBut why?
replyYou keep saying you believe it, but that is literally what a database is, game state manipulation, string manipulation, iterator algorithms, list comprehensions, range algorithms, image manipulations, etc. These are all instances where you use the same data structures over and over with as many algorithms and functions and you need.