Your argument is akin to "why do you need a high-level language? just write it in assembly, C is just a hack to circumvent badly designed assembly". If a 'properly designed yaml schema' was sufficiently powerful for all these use-cases then why does everyone and their third cousin come up with new configuration languages every week? Clearly they do, thus I must reject the null hypothesis and conclude that plain yaml schemas are not sufficient.
>If a 'properly designed yaml schema' was sufficiently powerful for all these use-cases then why does everyone and their third cousin come up with new configuration languages every week?
Coz they fucked up/didn't fix their schema designs and people keep trying to work around that?
I thought I was being very explicitly obvious about this.
Programming is a history of bad designs being worked around with awkward hacks. This is nothing new.
Ah so your argument is that they just aren't doing it right, that a true yaml schema designer wouldn't make this mistake. It's just a mistake.. which keeps being made over and over by everyone that does configuration. Sounds like a no-true-scotsman and "it's the children who are wrong" to me. Can you give any examples of a popular correctly designed yaml schema?
These arguments aren't holding any water.