For me, whenever someone invokes the GoF or SOLID, I’m reminded of the Brothers Grimm. It’s programming by folklore. That’s all the GoF did: they went out into

For me, whenever someone invokes the GoF or SOLID, I’m reminded of the Brothers Grimm. It’s programming by folklore. That’s all the GoF did: they went out into the world and tried to observe how programmers were structuring their programs. And they seemed particularly interested in programmers using OOP. All of these principles have very little basis or formal definition. Bertrand Meyer did make some headway with Eiffel. But the type systems are so weak and the lack of formal semantics makes all of these discussions a bit of hand waving and bike shedding. At least the DOD folks have some guiding philosophy and are trying to optimize the design of programs to account for memory latency of modern hardware architectures. The OOP defenders are basing their argument on hot air and hand waving. There are more interesting languages these days with better designs. Ones that are based on better theories in my opinion. OOP will be around for a long time if only because it has so many adherents and people will be stubborn to change if history has anything to say about it.