Yes. But such balance sheet is difficult to establish, to synthesize in current period.
2.8 redesign was ambitious, touching to almost every part of software and thought to correspond to a decade of development.
So, current release of Blender is a kind of Frankenstein creature between 2.79 status and future coherent Blender 4.
In Blender 3, a lot of new stuff is not finished, polished. And a lot of old stuff is still there waiting for its replacement. There are also new stuff that was rushed, or did not reach expectations and will be refactored, again.
And there were some parts that were neglected by 2.8 design.
Constat was done at last 2020 Blender Conference that pipeline integration was difficult.
If you look at videos of Conference, you can see that studios working with blender, often made ugly addons UIs with a lot paths taking a lot of place. The word “pipeline” was mentioned in a lot of talks.
But weirdly, the points asked by @kikomiko were not mentioned as clearly.
UI of paths was simply neglected by 2.8 UI redesign proposal.
Patch mentioned by @sozap happened in 2009, during 2.5 refactor, it was lost in the mass.
Then, a comment revived it in 2020, 2 years, after 2.8 codequest workshop.
And it was also expressed in middle of a ton of feedback on 2.8 series.
As developers, working in a studio with multiples machines, I think that they don’t need explanations to interest of environment variables in paths. They simply have other priorities.
They want to improve robustness of work done in Blender, before making it communicate with other stuff.
In all points, a Blender 3 is more powerful than a Blender 2.79. But that is not always as fluent or coherent, because of “Frankenstein” status.
Desire to focus on satisfaction of old users was expressed in Ton’s keynotes of conference.
That is not because they are not open minded.
That is just because of context of current “in-between different designs” status of Blender.
That will be easier to work on communication with other software, when work in Blender will be fluent.
When viewport compositor will complete the package of Grease Pencil + EEVEE (that is making strength of Blender for storyboarding, previz and 2D/3D mix) ; more people will be interesting in testing pipeline integration solutions.
Last autumn, there was a workshop about animation tools. And in article of code blog, Sybren announced that there will be experiments done, about new animation tools, in upcoming year.
There was also a beginning of work to bring simulations to geometry nodes, with a new caching workflow.
Support of Vulkan by EEVEE next and Workbench should improve a lot abilities of viewport to handle heavy scenes.
So, it seems that some animation issues will be solved in a not so far future.
It is always possible to do better.
Complaints about old stuff are legitimate. It is planed to replace it.
Complaints about new stuff may be legitimate, too. It is planed to complete it by other new stuff or polished, later, or it neglected an aspect.
So, satisfaction is something really subjective.
If you are just one individual who don’t have time to modify UI or create a custom build ; and if you are a studio with a Blender dev employed : it is obvious that you will not be blocked same things and don’t have same expectations.
The “good enough” threshold is not the same for everybody.
So, I think that @kikomiko had correct approach by asking questions on specific points.
UI of file paths did not evolve, recently, is very limited and not common to all uses (path for render output has some specificity not handled by path for source of image datablock).
Blender Studio is working with a separated asset manager. And most of studios using blender are building their own workaround.
Customization of a node aspect is limited to a custom color and a custom label.
There is no custom shape or custom icon.
About varying shape, we are limited to opening/closing the node, hiding/revealing unused sockets to modify its height and increasing its width.