Wayland is indeed similar to systemd. It requires a monolithic implementation of all features traditionally done by separate programs (e.g. window managers, hotkey deamons, screen recorders, streamers, ...) because it lacks the appropriate protocols. X11 on the other hand provides a platform (thanks the "process not policy" design mantra) for all those separate programs by implementing those appropriate protocols.
Also, people love change if you have actual improvement. I was very happy to switch from sysvinit to runit.
X11 not being a monolithical piece of software sounds like a cognitive dissonance issue. The codebase is huge, even though they tried to get rid of some stuff recently, such as the printer drivers. But it contains a lot, from networking to graphical widgets, to GPU drivers. All of which is implemented monolithically in one program.
Wayland does specify only two thing: how to exchange buffers between applications, and agree on protocol extensions.
Then, you can make the inner workings as many pieces as you want. The "no window manager" is a fallacy. You could decide to write a compositor that offers a protocol to manage the windows. I'm pretty sure you can more or less do that today if you use sway.
The one thing Wayland doesn't do is specify the 1000s of things X11 was doing, most of which are hacks upon hacks on interfaces that were not designed for the stuff people are doing with.
> X11 not being a monolithical piece of software sounds like a cognitive dissonance issue.
But it isn't. Have you ever tried to use X11 without any window manager? You can't! In the best case you can type inside a terminal that is not moveable or resizable. X11 can not function on its own, hence it can't be monolithic.
Just because it is bloated doesn't mean it is monolithic. And most of the bloat is old graphics drivers which are not installed on your system anyways.
I'm not really liking X11 either. Just like I switched from sysvinit to runit I would be happy to switch from X11 to the next best thing. But Wayland is not it.
The protocol is flawed on so many levels but most importantly because it does not provide the necessary interfaces required for normal, functional desktop and degrades them to "implementation details" (or in your words "1000s of things"). Just blitting bitmaps is not sufficient for a working desktop system. The biggest pain point is access control policy, which Wayland completely ignores.
Also, people love change if you have actual improvement. I was very happy to switch from sysvinit to runit.