It kinda blows my mind that after XML we've managed to make a whole bunch of stuff that's significantly worse for any serious usage.

JSON: No comments, no datatypes, no good system for validation.

YAML: Arcane nonsense like sexagesimal number literals, footguns with anchors, Norway problem, non-string keys, accidental conversion to a number, CODE INJECTION!

I don't know why, but XML's verbosity seems to cause such a visceral aversion in a lot of people that they'd rather write a bunch of boring code to make sure a JSON parses to something sensible, or spend a day scratching their head about why a minor change in YAML caused everything to explode.

Actually my own problem with XML was annoyance that back when I had the thought of doing a complex config format in XML, the idea of modifying it programmatically while retaining comments turned out to be absolutely non-trivial. In comparison with the mess one can make with YAML that's just a trivial thing.

It's missing Ryzen AI MAX+, which is sort of the Apple Silicon equivalent.

> The web was objectively awful as a technology, and genuinely amazing, and nobody got into it because programming in Perl was somehow aesthetically delightful.

As an old school Perl coder, not true. Lots of people had a taste for Perl. TIMTOWTDI was sold as an actual advantage.

Perl caters to things almost nobody else does, like the way you have a negative "if" in "unless" and placing conditions after the code. So you can do things like:

    frobnicate() unless ($skip_frobnicating);

     if (!$skip_frobnicating) frobnicate();

The bigger problem with Perl IMO is that it started as a great idea and didn't evolve far enough -- a bunch of things had to be tacked on, and everyone tacked on them slightly differently for no real benefit, resulting in codebases that can be terribly fragile for no good reason and no benefit.

What makes Agile the most-wrong way to manage, in your opinion? I'm curious.

Data has negative weight on punched cards or tape.