Subdiv surfaces have always seemed like the best solution for most things - the modelling is very flexible - but the more projects you use them on, the more it’s clear to see they make life much harder in a lot of circumstances.
Even something as simple as a cable, you really can’t model that with subdivs because the shape just collapses if you have an extreme angle. This requires modelling certain objects with different geometry types and that has implications for dynamics/collisions/particles.
I think a unified surface type that gives you the control to model any object you could need would be a huge benefit. Using Catmull-Clark where making a hole in an object disrupts the rest of the model is so frustrating to correct, especially if it’s a well-defined inorganic shape.
But then again, as pointed out, it will only be another surface type that co-exists with the others, which to some extent defeats the points of having a unified type. Given that Blender NURBs support isn’t all that great, this suggestion seems more like if anybody ever works on NURBs, this would be a good way to go rather than say a replacement for Catmull-Clark.
NURBs implementations in most programs are fairly poor. Even Maya’s sucks. I probably shouldn’t say ‘even’ because Maya sucks at a lot of things and I shouldn’t perpetuate the delusion that because it’s the industry standard that it is expected to do everything well. This technique would at least get round a lot of the inherent flaws with NURBs and so it wouldn’t seem so much like a pointless venture implementing it.
As always with these projects, it’s easy to have opinions over it being a good or bad idea when someone else has to do all the work. In that light, yes I’m happy to spectate while someone painstakingly implements a whole new surface type.