← Back to context Comment by someguyiguess 9 hours ago It only applies to the object oriented programming paradigm 3 comments someguyiguess Reply mrkeen 7 hours ago Negative.The only part of SOLID that is perhaps OO-only is Liskov Substitution.L is still a good idea, but without object-inheritance, there's less chance of shooting yourself in the foot. marcosdumay 8 hours ago That's understating the problem. It mandates OOP.If you follow SOLID, you'll write OOP only, with always present inheritance chains, factories for everything, and no clear relation between parameters and the procedures that use them. Exoristos 8 hours ago This is only superficially true. Here's a fair discussion that could serve as a counterpoint: https://medium.com/@ignatovich.dm/applying-solid-principles-...
mrkeen 7 hours ago Negative.The only part of SOLID that is perhaps OO-only is Liskov Substitution.L is still a good idea, but without object-inheritance, there's less chance of shooting yourself in the foot.
marcosdumay 8 hours ago That's understating the problem. It mandates OOP.If you follow SOLID, you'll write OOP only, with always present inheritance chains, factories for everything, and no clear relation between parameters and the procedures that use them.
Exoristos 8 hours ago This is only superficially true. Here's a fair discussion that could serve as a counterpoint: https://medium.com/@ignatovich.dm/applying-solid-principles-...
Negative.
The only part of SOLID that is perhaps OO-only is Liskov Substitution.
L is still a good idea, but without object-inheritance, there's less chance of shooting yourself in the foot.
That's understating the problem. It mandates OOP.
If you follow SOLID, you'll write OOP only, with always present inheritance chains, factories for everything, and no clear relation between parameters and the procedures that use them.
This is only superficially true. Here's a fair discussion that could serve as a counterpoint: https://medium.com/@ignatovich.dm/applying-solid-principles-...