... and arguing ...

I'll stop arguing my case when a) someone convinces me it is wrong b) I see no possibility of changing the outcome for which I am arguing.

Breath easy. You have convinced me that the latter is imminent.

... and do something?

Like what?

If you mean take the time to work up patches and submit them, I've already tried that route elsewhere. But, unless there is at least a general acceptance that the purpose of the patch is desirable, there is no point. The effort expended is wasted because someone you've never met, somewhere you've never been, will make a capricious and arbitrary decision that your patch doesn't fit with their blinkered vision and reject it. Been there, done that.

There has to be at least a general concensus amongst the major committers to a project that a particular new feature is desireable, before huge efforts are expended, otherwise that effort is wasted.

For example. If I submitted a patch that required major changes to say 50% of the existing source files; requires that the existing memory management strategy has to be turned on its head; and that causes all the existing language implementations to fail to build; what are the chances of that patch being accepted?

And when you've realised that the answer to that is; 0%, then you will realise why there is no point in attempting to pursue writing such a patch until at least one core developer accepts the premise that the aim of the work is valid.

but will you just stop whining ...

I'm not whining. And about 3-5 years from now, you'll realise that too. And 3-5 years from now do not be at all surprised if I am still around to say: I told you so!

Longevity has only one single advantage: what goes around, comes around.