[mettamage]

I do know closures but got rejected on not knowing SOLID. And when the interviewer explained it, the concepts were so easy to understand. I don't get it why he couldn't infer that I'd be able to apply the principles after a bit of practice.

[badfrog]

Sounds like it's a bad place to work anyway. Hiring people who can recite definitions without evidence of being able to apply the concepts is a recipe for building a terrible team.

[gherkinnn]

Seen it happen.

Very much like bike shedding: zealously insisting on <acronym> for every triviality, never doing so for more complex situations.

[gherkinnn]

It makes for a an easy checkbox. No thought on the side of the interviewer required. Quite sad, really.

[x] closures

[ ] solid

Candidate had 1/2. Rejected. Now back to shitposting on HN.

[treebog]

If they demand you know SOLID then they must be “Uncle Bob” acolytes, which is a strong signal that you should run in the opposite direction as fast as possible

[raverbashing]

SOLID is one of my pet peeves, because the important thing is to know the basic principles and architect it ok, naming be damned.

(Not to mention they are, in essence, very subjective principles)

[james_s_tayler]

Also knowing the names of them doesn't mean anything as far as I can tell. I've seen SOLID done well and SOLID done awfully. What counts is can you actually produce clean code that's not wasteful? Apparently knowing the acronym and being able to answer at least one question on it is a proxy for that. IMHO it's a pretty darn poor one, but it seems to be the one everyone goes with.