[Ha_Loe]

The question is how often would you need a history for your average extrude, loft and fillet?

A flexible history stack in general is good for task, where you need to move back and forth and adjust a lot of times. If you need to do that, why not take the time and build the stack by yourself, it's not that much slower than clicking the commands from the Rhino menus. You get a lot more control that way. If you don't need that control, what would you need a history stack for?

But yeah, most of the times GH is usefull for complex structures, you wouldn't want to build by hand.

[Polyxo]

The question is how often would you need a history for your average extrude, loft and fillet?

Hehe... Solidworks (>1mio. customers), CATIA, Inventor - any other parametric modeller is pretty much built around exactly this desire.
So some people definitely consider this quite useful.

While GH is fantastic it can not seriously be used as a replacement for what typical history-based modellers do.
It would be equally tedious and limited as using Rhino's paperspace to layout a book.

[Ha_Loe]

...any other parametric modeller is pretty much built around exactly this desire...

You just said it. Rhino isn't and probably never will be a parametric modeller. It just has a pretty good plug-in that adds this functionality. Sure it's not as easy as adding an angle or length parameter with a single click to the object you just created. But that concept also does limit the geometry you can create. History and parameters for a NURBS surface are hard to define. What NURBS functionality there is in Solidworks is just a tiny subset of what you can do with Rhino. Even Rhinos primitve "History" is able to relate the construction splines to the resulting loft and update the loft when the splines are changed.

Rhino isn't an animation tool either. Cinema4D, 3ds Max.. pretty much any animation centered software built around that exact desire.

But that wasn't the question.

[Polyxo]

But that concept also does limit the geometry you can create. History and parameters for a NURBS surface are hard to define. What NURBS functionality there is in Solidworks is just a tiny subset of what you can do with Rhino.

As much as I like the straightforwardness of history-free modelling in Rhino...
What you say here is not correct.
High End Nurbs packages like CATIA and NX don't only do primitives and their derivatives fully parametrically but also crazy intricated surfacing - far beyond the scope of Rhino.
Every operation, every trim, every blend, every surface-parameter-change, every everything remains editable and additionally may obey constraints and mates.
These apps cost a fortune though - good that many industries don't need such overkill.

Rhino isn't an animation tool either. Cinema4D, 3ds Max.. pretty much any animation centered software built around that exact desire.

Well I don't feel so determined here. As well as I can imagine methods for making explicit surface-modelling more effective I also could think of animation-solutions
for technicians which work a tad more elegantly than say Bongo. I personally don't think either that typical Digital-Content-Creation-apps a good match for animation
of geometry originally created in Nurbs. Simple Camera or full body aimation yes. But just think of a piece of sheet-metal - the simulation of its laser-contouring and some bends
in order to illustrate how a certain workpiece was manufactured. I would neither want to do this with Bongo nor with a Rhino-exported mesh inside a DCC-package.