After banging my head against this particular wall for years, I've pretty much given up. Now I look at the forums a couple times a year, and avoid complex work in SU. This thread is a classic, and you seem genuinely confused, so I'll try to lay it out for you.
You are probably a designer or something, used to working out solutions to a problem. Your confusion comes from the idea that this is a problem whose solution is desired.
The whole "simple interface" idea is great, but after you graduate from squares and rectangles (with the occasional triangle or trapezoid for variety) and you want to do something more, you try to play with organic shapes.
Remember, SU was designed by architects to quickly sketch buildings back when buildings were rectangular. Sixteen years later, thanks to all the other CAD software out there, they aren't. However, those other SU users hit the same wall you did and spent countless hours figuring out all the painful workarounds that you dislike so much. Their point is, if they could go to the brain numbing trouble to assimilate the six steps to make a sphere you describe, you can too, and you'll be better for it just like they are. They now think of spheres in terms of the Six Painful Steps it takes to make them, instead of what they truly are (just shapes), and hope you can graduate to that level of expertise.
Remember the glory days of Apple design, when they broke through barriers to intuitive use more often than they created them? That takes hard work and inspiration, whereas SU is more about just getting it done. Yes, there could be a toggle to push-pull a sphere or a taper or anything else (brilliant ideas! Never thought of that, but boy are they are genius!), but they fixed on the idea of the simple interface and set it up as holy.
Of course, this ignores the part where the kludges and workarounds make the simple interface maddeningly complex, but that's not the the point (Mirror object with a click! Jog in x, y, or z! Align by centers! You'd think skill at workarounds or at hunting plugins was the point, not drawing)
The point is that the simplicity of the interface is God, and the energy/desire/vision to actually make it a thing of ease and beauty is sadly lacking.
To be fair, there's an issue: when you try to do complex things with a limited tool set, you have to make your tools adaptable. The first level solution is to make more tools— Ever try Rhino? You can draw a line as a perpendicular, from two points, with the shortest length, from a point and a direction, etc, etc, and they all take different tools. Or you can go the SU route and make tools modular, so they can be layered into accomplishing most tasks— think mirroring by scaling at -100% or making circles with facets.
The second level of design is to think about the way people work, even more, to think about how they think, and make a user interface that works consistently, intuitively, with common tasks accomplished simply (like push-pull a sphere). With a field as broad as 3D design that's not an easy job, and it takes time and research and money. Early SU was perennially short of cash, then Google made it free and did not invest heavily. There's a long tradition of doing things simply and cheaply and frustratingly.
It's a shame SU and its community seems so fixed on the mechanics, instead of truly implementing the vision. The pushback you received here shows the depth of this thinking. There are some amazing, truly creative coders who have helped the community immensely with plugins and debugging and forum assistance. Unfortunately, that contributes to the problem by short circuiting the overall simplification and streamlining of the whole by focusing on bettering the parts. Major issues do not get addressed.
At least Trimble owns it now, and the kneejerk Forum response to bug reports is no longer saying your process is flawed. Kidding!