Good point. There aren't languages that do a complete job of absolutely enforcing such patterns of behavior, but there are environments that do a fairly good job of encouraging them.

Another thing I've noticed is that interfaces with two or fewer arguments (none of which boolean) tend to be used correctly more often than interfaces with a large number of arguments, or booleans.

Goes to the same point. Most of my work with complex stuff was in Smalltalk, and there is practically no enforcement of anything in that language. However, my experience is that it's practical to have codebases that adhere very closely to a number of patterns or coding standards. Also, there were very powerful search facilities in the environment that facilitated powerful deductions about the codebase. Often, work would involve making deductions, figuring out how those could be broken, then quickly searching for these instances. Often enough, the deductions could stand and make debugging and modifications easy.

Your preference in interfaces is also the one preferred by better Smalltalkers. Also, the environment is built up entirely of small components. One path of least resistance is to build new systems along the same lines. (That said, one could still write Fortran and COBOL in Smalltalk, and I had to deal with this professionally.)

Your point about the boolean arguments especially, I can't tell you the number of times I've painstakingly documented the parameter in the /// section of the function (in c#) just to make sure it's clear what passing false actually means.

I should just create an enum{ doTheDance,dontDoTheDance} with two values instead, often thought about it, but for some reason never actually done that.

The next guy will thank you.