same for the risk of making questionable design choices in a modern project
example - at the beginning, wayland was envisioned so that the server would only contain a window stack and receive hardware input firsthand, and
clients would handle EVERYTHING regarding their windows - not only (re) drawing their own decoration, minimizing and maximizing, but also dragging and moving in full screen coordinates (their window being a full screen surface anyway, optionally surrounded with transparent pixels) stacking order (implying access to the global window stack in the compositor) forwarding click events to other clients and so on - a concept making the system as a whole more fragile (every application participates in the protocol and acts as a point of failure for every operation) and going against the principle of transparency above
would you agree with this design?
You seem to be confusing display technology
and programming technology.
so a good professional is ready to change tools and development languages and adapt
Wayland developers are experts in display technology, while Mir devs are not (and no, it's not trivial).
you say the contrary - fine, on what basis?