You're assuming that tech is a meritocracy (it very much is not).
You're implying that if a tool is archaic, things cannot be done with it (also not true).
You're also explicitly saying that the features James mentioned are esoteric, which is easily disproven by the fact that many mainstream languages have them nowadays.
Some of the world's most incredible software is written in C and JavaScript and both are languages with incredible deficiencies from a language design standpoint. This doesn't take away from the software that was written in them.
Source: A couple of talks at FOSDEM.
Don't attribute to technology the outcome of political decisions.
I also used to get things done in TASM.