The only people left I see arguing for X are Linux zealots that hate any sort of change.
If not wanting to spend hours and hours of work replacing a set of tools that work very well for me with another set of tools with identical functionality makes me a "Linux zealot that hates any sort of change" then I will gladly accept that description.
Apparently Wayland's architecture makes it an actual hard problem. It's the one tool I rely on daily that is stopping me from trying Wayland.
Some of these have alternatives that work the way I want, some don't. In either case I will have to spend time replicating the environment I've been happy with for many years by finding and configuring existing tools or by writing my own, all for no concrete benefit.
Eventually I'll have to bite the bullet I suppose, but Xorg works well today and I expect it will continue to work well for quite a few more years. As long as it's not needed, I'd rather spend my time elsewhere.
"People who don't like my software just hate all change" is just a cope cliche line from people who can't out-compete old software on the merits which are valued by users. Instead they tell users that their values are wrong ("Why do you need that?") and then accuse them of hating change.
For non-gaming usage Wayland should actually be better for battery life as the protocol is less chatty. Though of course it depends on which implementation you use.
"should" is one thing, but you're responding to someone who appears to have actually observed the opposite in reality, so that's not really helpful
Also, wayland is huge in the embedded sector, e.g. many car display uses it, specifically because they cheap out on hardware, but wayland still runs just fine, unlike X.
X was born on Unix workstations in the late 80s and had acceptable performance; there has to be more to it than that.