SOLID being included immediately makes me have zero expectation of the list being curated by someone with good taste.

detectivestory 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm seeing some hate for SOLID in these comments and I am a little surprised. While I don't think it should ever be used religiously, I would much rather work on a team that understood the principles than one that didn't.

	▲	causal 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think it's probably pointing toward the general harm that thinking only in objects has done to programming as a practice
	▲	AtNightWeCode an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I think the baseline is that code can be trash and still comply with SOLID. Therefor people get frustrated over it. Getting PR:s rejected and so on. I think it is better to have real requirements like: The code needs to be testable in a simple way.

▲

newsoftheday 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The few on this page today who object to SOLID seem likely to me to be functional programmers who have never understood software engineering principles in the first place.

	▲	sov 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Weird take--SOLID, to me (I work in embedded but have done basically everything), represents a system of design principles that mean well and are probably fine in a heavily OO environment 80% of the time but resoundingly end up prime examples of the pareto principle.

▲

heap_perms 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's interesting, what makes you think that? Not long ago, I was working on my degree in Computer Science (Software Engineering), and we were heavily drilled on this principle. Even then, I found it amusing how all the professors were huge fanboys of SOLID. It was very dogmatic.