I don't get why this was written. Linus said something obviously hyperbolic about a language with many generally accepted pitfalls. This author clarifies that

I don't get why this was written. Linus said something obviously hyperbolic about a language with many generally accepted pitfalls. This author clarifies that it isn't impossible to work with, has some applications and that using it well is better than using it poorly. What I'm trying to say is: is this just making a general and well-worn case for XML or is there a point relevant to Subsurface? I'm sure I could find a shallow remark made by this author and write 1000 words of qualification around that too. Right now, all I see is someone responding to a statement from a big name for attention. Is there a argument hidden in there about XML's relative ease to work with compared to other formats, either programatically or as a user? Any points on if XML is the right or wrong choice of tool for subsurface? The closest thing I see is a throwaway comment about an instance where CSV files also benefit from editors with features supporting more than plain text. And a point about unit type specification irrelevant to the file format.