In many ways, I'd rather maintain an old, well tested system than a modern system with widely available exploits, conflicting commercial interests, and rapid obsolescence.
My company is slowly upgrading all our application servers because what we were running is way past EOL. The ops team bitches and moans because the newer one is more unstable. Go figure.
I feel like developers tend to favor the magic, due to the burden it relieves, without having to consider the negatives due to the way the business of software works.
Compare that to the difficulty of writing a cross-platform GUI framework. It's not even easy to write bindings for existing GUIs because it's hard to wrap C++ in a way that doesn't have you manually managing memory or discarding other language features and philosophies.
This is why we're seeing the Electron approach to GUI apps grow. It's easier to write bindings for chromium and feed it HTML.
Magic is bad when it comes to replicability. I wish more people would take that into consideration when writing software. Your convenience for today is your headache for tomorrow. Be lazy. It's a good trait. But not too lazy.
The principle of least power: use the least amount that you need.
If an abacus suffices, you will reap the reliability and security rewards.
Warning: Wiki article is mostly plot spoiler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_the_Comet
Locally: if you distract the person making the calculations for a second, it's easy to move a bead or two.
Insider: easier than a computerized system for individual computations. Imagine how easy it is to move a few beads incorrectly when computing taxes on your own income statement and how much work it would be to detect that.
They're like the crumbling ruins of an ancient Roman city beneath a metropolis, beautiful only for their history. It's a nice place to visit. But you wouldn't want to live there.