> Backwards means backwards.
Sure. Just as the people walking away from the cliff edge are literally going "backwards" in relation to the folks whose trajectory will take them off the cliff.
You can make whatever comparison you want in terms of short-term convenience, but none of it addresses the inherent risk and diminished reliability of the solutions you're arguing for.
> If you insist on defending a relic from a bygone age, then by all means do it.
I'm not "defending a relic from a bygone age", but rather defending what actually works in the present-day status quo against idealized notions advancing a clearly inferior and more dangerous solution for the sake of pure novelty.