>Code is better than YAML. This is too broad a backlash against it. Where YAML is used in problem domains where the configuration complexity is strictly limite

>Code is better than YAML. This is too broad a backlash against it. Where YAML is used in problem domains where the configuration complexity is strictly limited and "etched in stone" it works very well. Nobody tends to champion YAML in this use case because it becomes somewhat invisible. It Just Works and nobody complains, but nobody raves either. In domains where you have to start templating YAML, it fails horribly of course. This is YAML being used in a domain where it either shouldn't ever have been used or where APIs of some kind should have been provided alongside to accommodate dynamic use cases. What "works" as configuration is often very hard to know up front, but the above attitude is throwing the baby out with the bathwater rather than seeking the correct balance. Turing complete code is inherently more difficult to parse, understand and modify clearly than a config file and much more susceptible to technical debt. >Your Integration Tests are Too Long This is also a wrong attitude, I think. Faster feedback loops are great, but an obsession with speed typically leads to a lot of very quick tests that test very unrealistically - often missing entire classes of bug. I've worked on a bunch of projects which had test suites that completed in under 10 seconds and never caught any bugs. Meanwhile, the team would end up leaning on manual QA to replace "slower" integration tests and the feedback loop on that made 5 hour CI runs look entirely worthwhile.