> You then say that if they had been developed the way I describe, they would not exist. But they were in fact developed the way I described.
This is literally false. They were not developed in a vacuum like you describe, but as one of a great many competing products, all of which were older. You claim they should have been folded in with other, older projects, but they weren't and because they weren't, they improved beyond those other projects, and are still here, having grown beyond the projects you claim they should have been absorbed by.
My argument was less than 50 words, if you can't parse it, I can't help you. This is also nearly a week old, has completely lost my interest, and likely the interest of everyone else on this site. Why are you still replying?
This is literally false. They were not developed in a vacuum like you describe, but as one of a great many competing products, all of which were older. You claim they should have been folded in with other, older projects, but they weren't and because they weren't, they improved beyond those other projects, and are still here, having grown beyond the projects you claim they should have been absorbed by.
My argument was less than 50 words, if you can't parse it, I can't help you. This is also nearly a week old, has completely lost my interest, and likely the interest of everyone else on this site. Why are you still replying?