I truly don't understand why people are getting worked up over this.
My problem is with a new system that does not even match the features of a 30+ year old system.
The problem is that what you need isn't necessarily what other people need. There are people who don't use the mouse, would you be happy if Wayland skipped implementation of mouse support?
Of course I wouldn't want them to skip mouse support; you're being deliberately obtuse. Did you know that what you need isn't necessarily what other people need? A plain-old desktop user doesn't need all the features of X. If Wayland can be better in any significant way while maintaining the features that I need, why shouldn't I be happy about it? (Side note: I don't think this is what you're saying, but just in case - supporting 30 year old features just for the sake of feature parity would be assinine and a complete waste of effort. If they're features that really are used, then OK.)
This is the beauty of open source. You can continue to use X all you want while those of us who don't need the features can move on to something else. If X is truly better for a given use case, then people will use it. Or not. There is no harm in having both. Drop the torch and pitchfork and let people vote with their feet. If us lesser beings are all using Wayland or whatever, you can focus development on X on the 30 year old features that make you so special.
You might make an argument that development time should be focused on X, but that's always been a flawed view. The people that go start a new project do so because they don't want to continue with the old project. Again, the power of choice and beauty of open source.