As I want to learn, outside of the problems with cargo culting, why having the SOLID principals as the default _ideal_ when programming cause problems.
Sure he was pulling from Structural design ideas, which even Tom DeMarco, the author of the canonical book on SD, now says should have been iterative and Agile-like, but he was also pulling from papers like the following from 1972 about modularity.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/361598.361623
The SOLID principles are a specific application of computer science principles to OO.
Separation of Concerns is a specific example of core CS principals that he pulled from but are from Dykstra.
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd04xx/EWD447.PDF
So is your reason for discrediting him that he aspired to be a professional writer, or that he tried to collect concepts from the wider tent into a more domain specific presentation?
Because structural design is an example where the founders realized that not paying attention to that first paper was problematic.
"We have tried to demonstrate by these examples that
it is almost always incorrect to begin the decomposition
of a system into modules on the basis of a flowchart.
We propose instead that one begins with a list of
difficult design decisions or design decisions which are
likely to change. Each module is then designed to hide
such a decision from the others. Since, in most cases,
design decisions transcend time of execution, modules
will not correspond to steps in the processing. To
achieve an efficient implementation we must abandon
the assumption that a module is one or more sub-
routines, and instead allow subroutines and programs
to be assembled collections of code from various
modules."
How about addressing Robert Martin's position, instead of irrelevantly attacking random aspects of the person who is making the argument. A.K.A Ad Hominem fallacies.
In the context of this thread, if a candidate could only express their objections to _ideals_ that are intended to be the defaults, and couldn't express their objections in a way that related to business and customer needs, I would be a hard no on the hiring position.
It is OK to not agree with these ideals, but to only offer personal attacks to dismiss them, it indicates someone who will probably be a difficult team member and lack customer focus.
Ad Hominem's never address the real concerns or needs of a project and are simply not constructive.
We know that EA failed, we know SOA works better if imperfect, we know that aiming for loosely coupled and highly cohesive code results in systems that are easier to maintain and scale, and we know that with the rise of the cloud most needs will be distributed. All of those apply the same principles at a different scale or domain.
Hand waving away those well known concepts because you have a distaste for an author won't change that. But if you share ideas that address the limits of those ideas perhaps it can help move us further.