On existing projects, consider the global effort to change from origin/master to origin/main. The cost of being different than git convention and every book, tutorial, and blog post. Is the cost of change and being different worth it?

When mocking is deemed profitable:

I'm not sure why MSFT decided to change these codes in the first place. While it might have been a noble goal to follow the IETF standard (though I'm not really familiar with this), the old codes were already out there, and most developers don't benefit by the new codes, nor care about what these codes are called (a code is a code). Just the opposite occurs in fact, since now everyone including MSFT itself has to deal with two codes that represent the same language (and the resulting problems). My own program needs to be fixed to handle this (after a customer contacted me with an issue), others have cited problems on the web (and far more probably haven't publicised theirs), and MSFT itself had to deal with this in their own code. This includes adding both codes to .NET even though they're actually the same language (in 4.0 they distinguished between the two by adding the name "legacy" to the full language name of the older codes), adding special documentation to highlight this situation in MSDN, making "zh-Hans" the parent culture of "zh-CHS" (not sure if it was always this way but it's a highly questionable relationship), and even adding special automated code to newly created "add-in" projects in Visual Studio 2008 (only to later remove this code in Visual Studio 2010, without explanation and therefore causing confusion for developers - long story). In any case, this is not your doing of course, but I don't see how anyone benefits from this change in practice. Only those developers who really care about following the IETF standard would be impacted, and that number is likely very low. For all others, the new codes are just an expensive headache. Again, not blaming you of cours

I'm not sure why MSFT decided to change these codes in the first place. While it might have been a noble goal to follow the IETF standard (though I'm not really familiar with this), the old codes were already out there, and most developers don't benefit by the new codes, nor care about what these codes are called (a code is a code).

>> We have that already, it's named 'json_each_text' > Apparently you haven't looked at json parse/deparse costs ;P Well, a PL function is gonna be none too cheap either. Using something like JSON definitely has lots to recommend it --- eg, it probably won't break when you find out your initial spec for the transport format was too simplistic.

Sure, zero-config one-click installs are nice and all, but:

despite initially appearing to be an appropriate and effective response to a problem, has more bad consequences than good ones

Progress is made of compromises, this implies that we have to consider not only disadvantages, but also the advantages. Advantages do very clearly outweigh disadvantages. This doesn’t mean it perfect, or that work shouldn’t continue to minimize and reduce the disadvantages, but just considering disadvantages is not the correct way.

Of all the compile-to-languages, the one that strikes me as having the least merit is JSX. It's basically a ton of added complexity for the sake of what boils down to syntax. There are no real gains in terms of language semantics in JSX.

However, in practice I do not think these tradeoffs are enough to justify logic-less templates.

Cons aren't covered by pros.