There are many days that I get disheartened about graphs being too complex to use as an interchange format. My world (structured data at Google) revolves around graphs but humans just have a lot of problems reasoning about higher dimensional data. Sometimes I think trees are about as far as the average person can handle intuitively.
I can easily point to all the advantages in composability, lack of redundancy, etc. but if you can't picture it easily in your mind it makes it hard to work with.
@rrlevering interesting point. Are there thought exercises or practices you think helps folks train themselves to conceptualise more complex structures? (Perhaps some kind of tuple tiktok lifehack popular with the youth 😀. There could be a dance and everything)
Or do you think it's really more just a case of some folks getting it, some folks don't?
@rrlevering @dwsmart I think for a lot of people the lack of publicly available visualization/modeling/analyzing tools forms a serious roadblock.
I've seen some luxurious high-$ tools, but for anybody without deep pockets there just isn't anything.
Keeping the use of graphs out of reach for most and stopping them from learning to think in a graph way.
As such it is very hard to learn about and make use of them.
The gap to the lower ranks simply is too big (unless you have a triple PhD).
Ryan Levering
Dave Smart 
Teodora Petkova
just Jarno