Forcing people out of the habit to assume this branch would be called master, is a valuable lesson.

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?

much software requires continuous changes to meet new requirements and correct bugs, and re-engineering software each time a change is made is rarely practical.

What’s the use of ie. snap libreoffice if it can’t access documents on a samba server in my workplace ? Should I really re-organize years of storage and work in my office for being able to use snap ? A too high price to pay, for the moment.

One of the primary tasks of engineers is to minimize complexity. JSX changes such a fundamental part (syntax and semantics of the language) that the complexity bubbles up to everything it touches. Pretty much every pipeline tool I've had to work with has become far more complex than necessary because of JSX. It affects AST parsers, it affects linters, it affects code coverage, it affects build systems. That tons and tons of additional code that I now need to wade through and mentally parse and ignore whenever I need to debug or want to contribute to a library that adds JSX support.

Compounding the problem of iteration disguised as oscillation is the cost of change.

Incurring high-cost changes isn't evolutionary design-it's oscillation caused by poor planning and requirements specification on a high cost-of-change component-it tips the anticipation/adaptation balance too far towards adaptation.