> I still see factories on a daily basis. They are a useful design pattern that is utilized in Java.

A separate factory type means you have to write twice as much code for no real benefit. In most languages you'd just use a first-class function (and in post-8 Java you can do the same: rather than a FooFactory you accept a Supplier<Foo> and people can pass ::Foo . It's still more cumbersome than in most languages though). Or, in a lot of other cases, the factory is just a clunky way to achieve named arguments.

> My anecdotal evidence is that I have never seen the over-engineered "Enterprise Java horrors" OP is talking about despite working in the Java EE (now Jakarta EE) space.

Have you worked on a reputable codebase in a low-overhead language like Python or Ruby? If you don't recognise factories as bloat then you may well miss the other cases (famously, the majority of the Gang of Four patterns can just be replaced by passing a function).

> A separate factory type means you have to write twice as much code for no real benefit.

Ah! There's the confusion. What I meant was I see factory methods in code we consume on a daily basis, not that we write the full factory objects. A number of Java projects have static factory methods that provide the interface implementation instance based on your configuration.

Would you still object to this kind of design?

If you're actually using that configurability (i.e. your method actually instantiates different implementations in different cases) then no - that's the same thing you'd do in any language. If you're pre-emptively defining factory methods that actually just call the normal constructor then yes (a lot of Java bloat is like that - see also getters and setters on every field for the sake of the 0.01% where you actually want to do something other than just read/write the field).