Adobe flagships, like Photoshop and Lightroom, are probably a hodgepodge of patches of aging code that could benefit from a fresh start. Combine that with users demanding that Lightroom do things it is clearly not intended to do, like detailed pseudo-pixel editing operations such as retouching and cloning, and the mess we see today is inevitable. I have, fortunately, never had problems with LR, primarily because I avoid using it. To me, this is the easiest way to ensure that I do not encounter the workflow bottlenecks that seem to plague the software with each update that claims otherwise.
If you go to the Luminous Landscape forum and read through this thread (started in 2013!):
If Thomas [Knoll] designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
you can only hope that Thomas Knoll and the folks at Adobe are busy conceptualizing and creating a new Photoshop - not a Lightroom, which does not permit image processing, but a full-fledged imaging application that gives the digital imaging user modernized tools for modern platforms and cameras. One does not need to reinvent Photoshop, but modernize and refine its approach, codebase and tools. Many other smaller outfits are doing or have done this, spurred on ironically by Adobe's choice to charge a subscription for its products, with the promise that the subscription model would spur continuous innovation and bug fixes. Well, we see where that has gone.
It is an interesting time in digital photography, with all of the innovation in cameras (minus Canon, who seem to have given up on innovating anything) and mobile photography and raw converters and image processors and computing power. Anyone who is old enough to have used some of the original digital cameras back in the day only has to pause and reflect for a moment to realize that we take an awful lot for granted when things do not appear to work perfectly. That said, Adobe really needs to step up its game if its marketing department wants to continue to be taken seriously - many subscribers, including me, likely continue to subscribe because of time and money and equipment invested in an Adobe-centric workflow, not because Adobe tools are the absolute best for the job.