To second this, look at that list, sort it by release date:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_computer-aided_design_software
There are other errors in that list, but no one seems to care anyway. I can think of no reason anyone at autodessys spending half an hour at wikipedia to correct something like that.
But this non effort policy is all over the place!
Following is a short summary of my observations (mac based)
on the rise:
blender, Rhino, Bricscad, shapr3d, in 2d: all from affinity
(in general: dedicated and active user user base, fast development, transparent as possible, first they copy, then they surpass competitors)
steady:
Cinema4d, Vectorworks, Archicad, maya, Houdini
(loyal user base, steady development, good marketing, open communication)
declining in significance:
form•z, lightwave, cobalt, powercadd, turbocad (and many other small companies)
(slow development, no recognisable future goals set, no transparency, rest on the laurels of the past)
out of competition (in their own view):
Autodesks products (the Microsoft of CAD, there's is an open letter going around the world), Sketchup, in 2d: adobe in general
(these are only around anymore to make money out of their standards, as intransparent as possible, but heavily cloud- and paying plan dependent)
This is the grave of any software development. form•z will not fall into that category, because they did not establish any standard.
i am sure, loyal users will come out again with something like " you can set the palettes right for your personal taste, read the manual, other software is also flawed, you can call support, I do not mind about some icons, there is always version XY to fall back, etc etc..."
It is embarrassing! Don't you want more new users of your "trusted software"? Does not sound like it!
The goal should be set: als easy as Sketchup, as precise and versatile as rhino, as customisable as cinema4d, all that communicated as transparent as blender!