With Cue, I personally think it is uglier than TOML and Dhall and only slightly less reader-ambiguous than YAML. But it’s like game theory: you have these strategies you add in the middle which come with half the costs and half the benefits and so they aren't strongly dominated by any of the other options and they get their fair share of the Nash equilibrium because they occupy that middle ground. So if one cannot say “this is clearly a wrong choice” one can nevertheless default to “this is a possible choice but I just have a lot of options and I can choose to be more arbitrary about what's important to me.
At one point in the early 00s I needed a shared hosting provider for a small site, and all of them looked unbelievably the same. I adopted the first narrowing criterion of “Reject any hosting provider which has a name of two words mashed together in PascalCase”, which IIRC cleared away well over half of the competition. There's nothing wrong with them, I just had a lot of options so I could afford to say “this looks so ugly and repetitive to me and I don't want to do it.”
That cleared away a lot but not enough to narrow it down to a few options, so I then arbitrarily limited it again, “no free hosting providers whose Contact Us links contain stock photography of a solitary white woman wearing a headset.” (Like she can be in a group, she can be a minority race, she can be holding a phone, she can be an actual employee of the given company, it could be somewhere else where it is not a link you click on, like a splash page—any of those is fine, just stop trying to suggest “we are trendy and support diversity but not so much diversity that you worry your precious white man head about being routed to a call center.”) That one was actually unreasonably effective and got it down another 80-90% or so to a manageable handful.
When you have a lot of middling options that cannot strictly be eliminated for technical merit the soft things are valuable for winnowing.