I can see why you would say that regarding the supervisor behaviour, but I don't see how your argument applies to the other five behaviours I wrote about. Let's keep it simple and focus on, say, `gen_server`?
> This is a case of what I'm talking about. Don't confuse Erlang's particular solution for being the only possible solution.
I'm not, in fact I mention that I've started working on a small prototype to explore implementing behaviours in a different way at the end of the post.
> Erlang's behaviors are basically the Template pattern (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_method_pattern ) written into the language rather than implemented through objects. If you look for the exact Erlang behaviors out in the wild, you won't hardly find anything. If you look for things that solve the same problems, there's tons of them.
My understanding of Joe's thesis is that we can compose a small set of behaviours into complex systems. He and OTP expose and highlight this structure. I don't doubt that other's have also discovered the usefulness of this structure, but I don't see anyone else try to help bring that structure to the forefront so that we can improve the state of software.
Your argument seems to be that this structure has now become implicit in the tools that have been developed since then, but I think again this misses the point: the structure is simple and should be made explicit not hidden away behind 500k lines of C (systemd) or almost 4M lines of Go (kubernetes).
