Structural Design Principles
These principles originated in object-oriented design but apply to any programming paradigm . They're about code structure, not paradigm.
Paradigm Translations
In functional programming (Elixir), they manifest as:
- Composition Over Inheritance → Function composition, module composition, pipe operators
- Law of Demeter → Minimize coupling between data structures, delegate to owning modules
- Tell, Don't Ask → Push logic to the module owning the data type
- Encapsulation → Module boundaries, immutability, pattern matching, opaque types
In object-oriented programming (TypeScript/React): Apply traditional OO interpretations with classes, interfaces, and encapsulation.
The underlying principle is the same across paradigms: manage dependencies, reduce coupling, and maintain clear boundaries.
Four Core Principles
1. Composition Over Inheritance
Favor composition (combining simple behaviors) over inheritance (extending base classes).
Why: Inheritance creates tight coupling and fragile hierarchies. Composition provides flexibility.
Elixir Approach (No Inheritance)
Elixir doesn't have inheritance - it uses composition naturally through:
- Module imports (
use,import,alias) - Function composition (
|>pipe operator) - Struct embedding
- Behaviour protocols
elixir# GOOD - Composition with pipes def process_payment(order) do order |> validate_items() |> calculate_total() |> apply_discounts() |> charge_payment() |> send_receipt() end # GOOD - Compose behaviors defmodule User do use YourApp.Model use Ecto.Schema import Ecto.Changeset # Composes functionality from multiple modules end # GOOD - Struct embedding defmodule Address do embedded_schema do field :street, :string field :city, :string end end defmodule User do schema "users" do embeds_one :address, Address end end
TypeScript Examples
typescript// BAD - Inheritance hierarchy class Animal { move() { } } class FlyingAnimal extends Animal { fly() { } } class SwimmingAnimal extends Animal { swim() { } } class Duck extends FlyingAnimal { // Problem: Can't also inherit from SwimmingAnimal // Forced to duplicate swim() logic } // GOOD - Composition with interfaces interface Movable { move(): void; } interface Flyable { fly(): void; } interface Swimmable { swim(): void; } class Duck implements Movable, Flyable, Swimmable { move() { this.walk(); } fly() { /* flying logic */ } swim() { /* swimming logic */ } private walk() { /* walking logic */ } }
typescript// GOOD - React composition (pattern) // Instead of class inheritance, compose components // Base behaviors as hooks function useTaskData(gigId: string) { // Data fetching logic } function useTaskActions(gig: Task) { // Action handlers } function useTaskValidation(gig: Task) { // Validation logic } // Compose in component function TaskDetails({ gigId }: Props) { const gig = useTaskData(gigId); const actions = useTaskActions(gig); const validation = useTaskValidation(gig); // Combines all behaviors through composition return <View>{/* render */}</View>; }
Composition Guidelines
- Elixir: Use pipes, protocols, and behaviors instead of inheritance trees
- TypeScript: Use interfaces, hooks, and function composition instead of class hierarchies
- Build complex behavior from simple, reusable parts
- Favor "has-a" over "is-a" relationships
- Keep hierarchies shallow (max 2-3 levels if unavoidable)
2. Law of Demeter (Principle of Least Knowledge)
A module should only talk to its immediate friends, not strangers.
The Rule: Only call methods on:
- The object itself
- Objects passed as parameters
- Objects it creates
- Its direct properties/fields
DON'T chain through multiple objects (train wrecks)
Why (Elixir Context)
- Reduces coupling: When you reach through multiple data structures
(
engagement.worker.address.city), you're coupled to the entire chain. If any intermediate structure changes, your code breaks. - Improves testability: Code that only calls functions on its immediate collaborators is easier to test - you don't need to construct deep object graphs.
- Enables refactoring: You can change internal structure without breaking callers if they only interact with top-level functions.
- Follows functional boundaries: In Elixir, each module should be responsible for its own data type. The Law of Demeter enforces this by pushing you to delegate to the owning module.
Elixir Examples
elixir# BAD - Violates Law of Demeter (train wreck) def get_worker_city(engagement) do engagement.worker.address.city # Knows too much about internal structure end # What if worker doesn't have address? # What if address structure changes? # Tightly coupled to implementation # GOOD - Delegate to the module that owns the data type defmodule Assignment do def worker_city(%{worker: worker}) do User.city(worker) end end defmodule User do def city(%{address: address}) do Address.city(address) end def city(_), do: nil end # Now can call: Assignment.worker_city(engagement) # Each module is responsible for its own data # Coupling minimized to immediate collaborators
elixir# BAD - Reaching through associations def total_gig_hours(user_id) do user = Repo.get!(User, user_id) assignments = user.assignments Enum.reduce(assignments, 0, fn eng, acc -> acc + eng.shift.hours # Reaching through end) end # GOOD - Delegate to the domain def total_gig_hours(user_id) do user = Repo.get!(User, user_id) User.total_hours(user) end defmodule User do def total_hours(%{assignments: assignments}) do Enum.reduce(assignments, 0, fn eng, acc -> acc + Assignment.hours(eng) end) end end defmodule Assignment do def hours(%{shift: shift}), do: WorkPeriod.hours(shift) end
TypeScript Examples: Law of Demeter
typescript// BAD - Chain of doom function displayUserLocation(engagement: Assignment) { const location = engagement.worker.profile.address.city; // Knows about 4 levels of object structure! return `Location: ${location}`; } // GOOD - Each object provides what you need function displayUserLocation(engagement: Assignment) { const location = engagement.getUserCity(); return `Location: ${location}`; } class Assignment { getUserCity(): string { return this.worker.getCity(); } } class User { getCity(): string { return this.address.city; } }
typescript// BAD - GraphQL fragments violating Law of Demeter const fragment = graphql` fragment TaskCard_gig on Task { id requester { organization { billing { paymentMethod { last4 } } } } } `; // TaskCard shouldn't know about payment details! // GOOD - Only query what you need const fragment = graphql` fragment TaskCard_gig on Task { id title payRate location { city state } } `; // TaskCard only knows about gig display data
Law of Demeter Guidelines
- One dot (method call) is okay:
object.method() - Multiple dots is a code smell:
object.property.property.method() - Create wrapper methods instead of chaining
- Each module should only know about its direct collaborators
- Particularly important in GraphQL - don't query deep nested data you don't need
Exception: Fluent interfaces designed for chaining
In Elixir, the pipe operator and certain builder patterns (like Ecto) are designed for chaining:
elixir# This is okay - designed for chaining User.changeset(%{}) |> cast(attrs, [:email]) |> validate_required([:email]) |> unique_constraint(:email) # This is okay - Ecto.Query builder pattern from(u in User) |> where([u], u.active == true) |> join(:inner, [u], p in assoc(u, :profile)) |> select([u, p], {u, p}) # These patterns are explicitly designed for method chaining # Each function returns a chainable structure
The key difference: fluent interfaces are designed for chaining as their
primary API, whereas reaching through data structures (.worker.address.city)
is accidental coupling.
3. Tell, Don't Ask
Tell objects what to do, don't ask for their data and do it yourself.
Why (Functional Context)
In Elixir, "Tell, Don't Ask" means delegating to the module that owns the data type . Instead of pulling data out of a structure and making decisions based on it, you pass the structure to the owning module and let it handle the logic.
This principle:
- Encapsulates business rules with the data they operate on
- Reduces coupling - callers don't need to know internal state or structure
- Improves cohesion - related logic lives together in the owning module
- Enables polymorphism - different implementations can handle the same "tell" differently
Think of it as: "Don't ask a struct for its fields and decide what to do - tell the module to do it."
Elixir Examples: Tell Don't Ask
elixir# BAD - Asking for data and making decisions def process_engagement(engagement) do if engagement.status == "pending" and engagement.worker_id != nil do attrs = %{status: "confirmed", confirmed_at: DateTime.utc_now()} Repo.update(Assignment.changeset(engagement, attrs)) end end # We're asking about the engagement's state and deciding what to do # GOOD - Delegate to the module that owns the Assignment struct def process_engagement(engagement) do Assignment.confirm(engagement) end defmodule Assignment do def confirm(%{status: "pending", worker_id: worker_id} = engagement) when not is_nil(worker_id) do changeset = change(engagement, %{ status: "confirmed", confirmed_at: DateTime.utc_now() }) Repo.update(changeset) end def confirm(engagement), do: {:error, :invalid_state} # Assignment module knows its own business rules # Callers just "tell" it to confirm, don't "ask" about status end
elixir# BAD - Asking and deciding def charge_gig(gig) do if gig.payment_type == "per_hour" do rate = gig.hourly_rate hours = gig.total_hours Money.multiply(rate, hours) else gig.fixed_amount end end # GOOD - Delegate to the module that owns the Task struct def charge_gig(gig) do Task.total_charge(gig) end defmodule Task do def total_charge(%{payment_type: "per_hour", hourly_rate: rate, total_hours: hours}) do Money.multiply(rate, hours) end def total_charge(%{payment_type: "fixed", fixed_amount: amount}) do amount end # Business logic lives with the data in the owning module end
TypeScript Examples: Tell Don't Ask
typescript// BAD - Asking for data function renderTaskStatus(gig: Task) { let statusText: string; let statusColor: string; if (gig.status === 'active' && gig.workerCount > 0) { statusText = 'In Progress'; statusColor = 'green'; } else if (gig.status === 'active') { statusText = 'Waiting for Users'; statusColor = 'yellow'; } else { statusText = 'Completed'; statusColor = 'gray'; } return <Badge text={statusText} color={statusColor} />; } // GOOD - Tell the gig to provide display info function renderTaskStatus(gig: Task) { const { text, color } = gig.getStatusDisplay(); return <Badge text={text} color={color} />; } class Task { getStatusDisplay(): { text: string; color: string } { if (this.status === 'active' && this.workerCount > 0) { return { text: 'In Progress', color: 'green' }; } else if (this.status === 'active') { return { text: 'Waiting for Users', color: 'yellow' }; } return { text: 'Completed', color: 'gray' }; } }
Tell, Don't Ask Guidelines
- Push behavior into the module that owns the data type (Elixir) or object (TypeScript)
- Commands over queries (when possible)
- Modules/objects should protect their own invariants
- Reduces coupling - callers don't need to know internal state
- Particularly important in Command handlers - they tell, don't ask
Pattern
Command handlers follow "Tell, Don't Ask":
elixir# Command tells the system what to do %CreateTask{requester_id: id, title: "Landscaping"} |> CreateTaskHandler.handle() # Handler tells domain objects to execute # Not: Handler asks domain for data and decides
4. Encapsulation
Hide internal implementation details. Expose minimal, stable interfaces.
Why: Encapsulation (Elixir Context)
- Enables change: You can change internal implementation without breaking callers
- Enforces invariants: Internal state can only change through controlled functions
- Improves testability: Test the public interface, not implementation details
- Reduces cognitive load: Callers only need to understand the public API
- Supports modularity: Clear boundaries between modules
In Elixir, encapsulation is achieved through:
- Module boundaries (private functions with
defp) - Opaque types (
@opaque) - Pattern matching guards
- Changesets for validation at boundaries
- Minimizing public API surface
Elixir Examples: Encapsulation
elixir# BAD - Exposing internals defmodule PaymentProcessor do defstruct [:stripe_client, :api_key, :retry_count] def process(processor, amount) do # Callers can access processor.stripe_client directly # Breaks if we change internal implementation end end # GOOD - Encapsulate internals defmodule PaymentProcessor do @type t :: %__MODULE__{ stripe_client: term(), api_key: String.t(), retry_count: integer() } @enforce_keys [:stripe_client, :api_key] defstruct [:stripe_client, :api_key, retry_count: 3] # Public API def new(api_key), do: %__MODULE__{ stripe_client: Stripe.Client.new(api_key), api_key: api_key } def process(%__MODULE__{} = processor, amount) do # Internal implementation hidden do_process(processor, amount) end # Private implementation defp do_process(processor, amount) do # Can change internals without affecting callers end end
elixir# BAD - Ecto schema with map fields (no structure) defmodule Task do schema "tasks" do field :data, :map # Anything goes! end end # GOOD - Explicit fields (encapsulation via type system) defmodule Task do schema "tasks" do field :title, :string field :description, :string field :pay_rate, Money.Ecto.Composite.Type field :status, Ecto.Enum, values: [:draft, :published, :active, :completed] end # Changesets enforce valid transitions def publish_changeset(gig) do gig |> change(%{status: :published}) |> validate_required([:title, :description, :pay_rate]) end # Can't publish without required fields (encapsulated business rule) end
TypeScript Examples: Encapsulation
typescript// BAD - Public mutable state class ShoppingCart { public items: Item[] = []; // Anyone can modify directly! public total(): number { return this.items.reduce((sum, item) => sum + item.price, 0); } } const cart = new ShoppingCart(); cart.items.push(invalidItem); // Bypasses validation! // GOOD - Encapsulated state class ShoppingCart { private items: Item[] = []; // Hidden implementation public addItem(item: Item): void { if (this.isValid(item)) { this.items.push(item); } else { throw new Error('Invalid item'); } } public removeItem(itemId: string): void { this.items = this.items.filter(item => item.id !== itemId); } public getTotal(): number { return this.items.reduce((sum, item) => sum + item.price, 0); } public getItemCount(): number { return this.items.length; } private isValid(item: Item): boolean { return item.price > 0 && item.quantity > 0; } // All state changes go through controlled methods }
typescript// GOOD - React component encapsulation function TaskCard({ gigRef }: Props) { // Encapsulate internal state const [expanded, setExpanded] = useState(false); const gig = useFragment(fragment, gigRef); // Private helpers const handleToggle = () => setExpanded(!expanded); // Public interface is just the props return ( <Pressable onPress={handleToggle}> {/* Internal implementation */} </Pressable> ); } // Parent components don't know about 'expanded' state // Clean interface: pass gig data, get rendered card
Encapsulation Guidelines
- Make fields/functions private by default, public only when needed
- Use TypeScript
private,protectedmodifiers - Use Elixir module attributes (@) for internal data
- Elixir: prefix private functions with
defp - Validate inputs at boundaries (changesets, prop validation)
- Don't expose internal data structures
- Provide focused, minimal public APIs
- Change detection should be internal (don't expose dirty flags)
Patterns
- Ecto Changesets: Encapsulate validation and constraints
- GraphQL Types: Only expose fields needed by frontend
- Command Handlers: Encapsulate business rules
- Relay Fragments: Encapsulate data requirements in component
Application Checklist
Before implementing
- Can I compose instead of inherit? (Composition > Inheritance)
- Am I reaching through multiple objects? (Law of Demeter)
- Should this object do the work instead of me? (Tell, Don't Ask)
- Are internals hidden? (Encapsulation)
During implementation
- Use composition (pipes, hooks, interfaces)
- Call methods on direct collaborators only
- Push behavior to data owners
- Make fields/functions private by default
- Validate at boundaries
During code review
- Any deep inheritance hierarchies? (max 2-3 levels)
- Train wreck chains? (
a.b.c.d()) - Logic operating on other objects' data?
- Public mutable state?
Red Flags
Composition Over Inheritance
- Deep class hierarchies (>3 levels)
- Can't extend because already inheriting
- Duplicating code because can't multi-inherit
Law of Demeter
- Multiple dots:
user.profile.address.city - GraphQL queries 5+ levels deep
- Functions taking many parameters to avoid chaining
Tell, Don't Ask
- Lots of getters used in if statements
- Business logic outside the entity
- Type checking with if/else (
if type == 'x')
Encapsulation
- Public mutable fields
- Map/any types instead of structured data
- Callers modifying internal state directly
- No validation at boundaries
Integration with Existing Skills
Works with
solid-principles: Particularly Single Responsibility and Dependency Inversionecto-patterns: Changesets encapsulate validationcqrs-pattern: Commands tell, don't askatomic-design-pattern: Components composed from atoms/moleculessimplicity-principles: Simple composition over complex inheritance
Remember
Favor object composition over class inheritance (Gang of Four)
- Compose simple behaviors into complex ones
- Delegate to direct collaborators only
- Tell objects what to do, don't interrogate them
- Hide implementation details behind clean interfaces
Good design is about managing dependencies and protecting invariants - regardless of paradigm.

