This going off topic a bit and probably merits a thread of its own.
I am sure you are right that developers want to keep a lean basic program and allow people to use extensions to customize. That seems like a good thing in principle. The problem with it is that extensions start doubling up, some work better than others, and there is no official stamp of approval (unless you count the EW).
Having a lean program is the reverse of the AutoCad model, say, where the program is very fat indeed and includes all sorts of tools and capabilities that some will never need, but no ability to customize.
If I were looking for an analogy, I’d say that the current system is a bit like a John Deere tractor to which you fit Massey Ferguson attachments or lookalike parts made in some remote corner of the world because there are no actual John Deere parts!
Your suggestion of having tools built in that can be disabled is attractive for an end user but would it be for a developer, who then has to keep such tools up to date?