The real problem with post X compositors is that the Wayland developers assumed that the compositor developers will develop additional working groups (an input protocol, a window management protocol, etc) on top of the working group that exclusively focuses on display aka Wayland. Wayland was supposed to be one protocol out of many, with the idea being that if Wayland ever turns out to be a problem it is small in scope and can be replaced easily.

People who are thinking of a Wayland replacement at this stage, mostly because they don't like it, will waste their time reinventing the mature parts instead of thinking about how to solve the remaining problems.

There is also a misunderstanding of the ideology the Wayland developers subscribe to. They want Wayland to be display only, but that doesn't mean they would oppose an input protocol or a window protocol. They just don't want everything to be under the Wayland umbrella like systemd.

> People who are thinking of a Wayland replacement at this stage, mostly because they don't like it, will waste their time reinventing the mature parts instead of thinking about how to solve the remaining problems.

Now, if only people deciding to replace X11 with Wayland heeded your suggestion...

If they thought this then they misunderstood the people and problem space basically everything of importance.

A very insightful comment. I was a victim to exactly the misunderstanding you explained (as are many other commenters here). Thank you!

> Wayland developers assumed that the compositor developers will develop additional working groups

so, as Douglas Adams put it: someone elses problem.