Yes, the packaging geometry is pretty different on the F35C compared to other carrier-operated platforms like the F14, F/A-18, or E2C. Notably the platforms I just listed were designed from the ground up for CATOBAR operation. The F35C is just one variant of the platform, and must share certain geometries and constraints with its conventional and hovering sisters.
Tailhooks do predate the F-35C, but this particular airframe needs to maintain certain properties (low observability, aerobatic performance, weight, etc.). You can't simply enlarge the tail hook compartment and use the other aircraft's hook without compromising some of these properties.
Most machines don't have modular, swappable systems. For example you can't generally take the wheels of one model of car and just bolt them onto another (even if the bolt holes and centering ring line up) expecting it to go well. A tailhook is undeniably more complex than a car wheel--it's not a reasonable expectation to be able to just bolt one on from a different aircraft.
The author says the design was constrained by the space available for it when stowed in the airframe.
Yes, the tailhook bay is very, very small. We had a primary disconnect in the bay for the instrumentation wiring for our tailhook sensors. Any time we had to get at that disconnect without having the tailhook trestle removed, we would call it "proctology".
"Our existing service already has 'export to PDF' functionality. Why do we need to spend money building and testing 'export to PDF' functionality in our new service? Can't we just reuse the same code?"