Interview Alert: SOLID principles are asked in almost every LLD interview! “Does your design follow SOLID?” is a common follow-up question.
Think of SOLID like building codes for construction. A building inspector does not care whether your house is Victorian or modern — they care that the foundation is sound, the wiring is safe, and the plumbing does not cross-contaminate. SOLID principles are the building codes of software design. They do not prescribe a specific architecture, but they ensure that whatever you build can be maintained, extended, and debugged by the next person who opens the codebase.
Like how a chef COOKS, a waiter SERVES, and a cashier handles PAYMENT - each has one job.
# ❌ BAD: UserManager does EVERYTHINGclass UserManager: def create_user(self): pass def send_email(self): pass # Email is a different job! def generate_report(self): pass # Reporting is different too!# ✅ GOOD: Each class has ONE jobclass UserService: def create_user(self): passclass EmailService: def send_email(self): passclass ReportService: def generate_report(self): pass
class Calculator: def calculate(self, operation, a, b): if operation == "add": return a + b elif operation == "subtract": return a - b # Must modify here for each new operation!
How SOLID shows up in interviews: Interviewers rarely ask “explain the Liskov Substitution Principle” in isolation. Instead, they give you a design problem and watch whether your design naturally follows SOLID. For example, when you separate UserRepository from EmailService (SRP), use a PaymentGateway interface instead of if/elif chains (OCP), ensure all subclasses honor parent contracts (LSP), define small focused interfaces (ISP), and inject dependencies rather than hardcoding them (DIP) — you are demonstrating SOLID without naming it. The highest-signal move is to name the principle when you make a design choice: “I am splitting this into two classes because I want each to have a single reason to change — that is the Single Responsibility Principle.” This shows you are not just designing intuitively but reasoning deliberately.