Ahhh, I think I get it now.
All this time I have been investing my time in reading Patterns and Rules, not realizing that Erlang’s landscape requires a different approach from the get go.
After reading evryone’s replies, I have concluded the following:
- I need to focus more on architectural design principles and not patterns (specially the ones translated from other languages)
- I need to invest more on books and courses on how to model applications in Elixir (I suppose it doesn’t change much from erlang, right?)
When I started the book I had a copy of the GoF design patterns right alongside it. I still do, it’s a book I cherish a lot. But I now understand that the Elixir best characteristics are better fostered in a environment not restricted by the patterns of 15 years ago, made for C++.
In a way, this is both humbling and freeing. Humbling because I have cemented my position as a beginner. It somehow feels like after years of being a Senior in other areas where I had nothing more to really learn, coming to Elixir is almost like going back to level 1.
But I also feel free, because now that I understand this, I am more open minded and reading new books and posts from the community will be easier for me. I am not perfect, there will always be a part of me that goes “This really looks like pattern X or goes against rule Y” but now I feel I don’t have to compare everything against this huge database of past experiences and accepting new information (while still applying critical thinking ofc) will be easier.
It also makes me feel better about buying more books about Elixir, so I guess it’s good for everyone 
When folks started to write Gang of Four style books for other languages (GoF was originally written for C++ iirc), they needed to change and adapt the patterns. Sometimes they needed to make considerable changes. Sometimes they needed to throw patterns away completely because they didn’t make any sense in the new target language. (I’m thinking of the Ruby one especially.)
This is an important piece of history I didn’t know of and I can only wish I had heard it before!
?) And I am pretty convinced that the same will happen when I dive into logic programming, may it be classical prolog or miniKanren. Take a look into the wonderful book “Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs” from Abelson and Sussman on how to implement all these programming concepts in a functional setting.