Now that I completely agree with. I was there when the infamous “Java enterprise architects” ran rampant and ripped companies off of millions of dollars so I definitely have some PTSD about it.

Yes and no. If you use some well-known Elixir flavour of doing things (like configuring implementations and using dynamic dispatch) from the get go then this allows you to juggle a lot of complexity in the future. All that’s necessary is being a little clever at the start – but not too clever so as to lock yourself into a certain paradigm that might indeed turn out to be ill-advised 300k coding lines later.

I am not disagreeing with you – I am simply adding the nuance that we have it easier in FP. I’ve had to refactor and re-adapt huge Java and Ruby codebases in the past and that’s basically a perfect way to want to commit suicide.

That’s an excellent point.

Agreed, and I can relate, and that is the thing I found when looking into Desing patterns in FP or elixir; GoF is pretty redundant and not neat because as you say we have it easier with FP.

Indeed. Helps to go back to first principles. Thanks for pointing this out, since a behavior is just dynamic dispatch polymorphism, as “strategies” can be combined, mixed, and matched. Eureka!