Doesn’t mention exa.
Yes it’s missing nuance if you don’t click through, but that’s a complete statement, and I wouldn’t expect people to click through to get more context
You can try it with translation tools.
The problem is semantic: in any language whatsoever (I suspect) if we express the idea that X is a replacement for Y, and in the same sentence mention some attributes of X, it means that those attributes are relevant to qualifying X as a replacement, which implies that those attributes are lacking or inadequately present in Y.
Without heaps of prior context, it is an impossible interpretation that the X attributes are not actually lacking in Y, but in a previously attempted replacement Z.
I don't know why you would try to take this opportunity to criticize English when this misunderstanding could be present in literally every other language.
Because there is nothing whatsoever here that is a case of linguistic confusion or vagueness -- it is a conceptual issue of comparing two items, applying an adjective to one, and leaving the reader to wonder what that implies about the other item.
And no, English is not a "dumpster fire". Every language has its pros and cons. But there is no language on Earth that is a "dumpster fire". There is absolutely nothing productive or good that can come out of blanket, utterly unfounded statements like that.