Thank you, [MENTION=265188]Andy Antipas[/MENTION] / sorry I was the catalyst that dragged you into this.

The question, as phrased, was/is technically an objective one as it is framed with regard to performance. Capability, grams, fine-tuning, metrics, etc. If it was couched in the subjective, then it would be more of a personal practicality question, which has been asked and answered numerous times in numerous ways. The question was also not one of necessity, which is also a subjective question. We could ask this "Which is [objectively] better?" question about late '60s muscle cars vs. today's equivalents. If, like the OP's question, there are no qualifiers outside of (implied) performace, then compared (in capability, speed, handling, safety, feel, ergonomics, mileage, etc) to today's offerings, '60s muscle car are woeful.

Compare a standard racing FW from the '70s and '80s to a modern 11-28T Dura-Ace cassette that is employed in racing. The FW is heavier, shifts less smoothly, is limited in gear range and ratios (to keep the human in their optimal RPM and effort level). The modern cassette is objectively superior in performance.
Compare a single pivot brake with a dual pivot brake.
Compare a steel frameset with a carbon frameset.

We can play this game forever. Given the same motor (person) on either era of bike, the modern one will be of noticeable advantage. This is something that data can back up along with anecdotal experiences. 5-6 lbs of weight from a bike from the '70s or '80s to today's 15 lb minimum is going to be felt in a lot of places.

If we want to talk about necessity or practicality or personal preference or what's best for a riding environment or what do you remember fondly or (subjective or objective) longevity, that is something completely different and is so subjective that there is no logically correct answer.