lolxmlhateonhn

I like rigid schemas for write and supporting both loose and rigid reads. Generally the friction in a system like that is something like the ad hoc SRE trying to load up a type stack just to interpret a protobuf log. Or Tableau. Stuff like that. That’s where people get annoyed. I think you’re right and there’s a lot of unexplored directions of simplicity.

Computers that understand the shape of your data are very helpful friends when you’re pursuing goals like data locality.

That’s called “schema.” It’s a pretty out there concept, I know, the idea that you should be burdened to document the structure and intent of your data for both human and mechanical consumption.

The problem with that is that you, personally, are then forbidden from arguing for the use of a strictly typed language for development because it’s the opposite position to the one you’re holding here. The exact reasons we use languages like those are the same reasons we should be explicit with our schemas. It’s unfortunate that a lot of people try to argue both sides due to the convenience, as you say, of a single line parse, when years of experience has taught that duck anything (typing, schema, policy) is a bug fountain.