I have a masters in CS and have been working for a decade at highly-regarded companies. I've never heard of SOLID and couldn't define closure precisely.
Very much like bike shedding: zealously insisting on <acronym> for every triviality, never doing so for more complex situations.
[x] closures
[ ] solid
Candidate had 1/2. Rejected. Now back to shitposting on HN.
(Not to mention they are, in essence, very subjective principles)
Closure don’t seem to be widely discussed outside of certain areas, so be it.
SOLID is rather surprising though. It seems to be quoted and (supposedly) adhered to religiously. Though I suspect it’s akin to people preaching TDD in public while we all know that’s rarely the case.
SOLID sounds nice but I don't think I've ever seen anyone adhere to it religiously. Easy exercise: take any Java program, and imagine the spec changed the width of integers it needs to support, from 32-bit to some other size. How many files would you need to touch to make this change? Clearly, no class in the program has the Single Responsibility of this. The first letter of SOLID is already violated.
It sounds like they're just describing recursive data structures? When most people talk about closures, aren't they referring to this (from Wikipedia)?
"In programming languages, a closure, also lexical closure or function closure, is a technique for implementing lexically scoped name binding in a language with first-class functions. Operationally, a closure is a record storing a function[a] together with an environment."
EDIT: My SICP quote was actually from somebody's notes, not the book itself. But the point remains.