I would tend to agree with you. To clear conjecture, a bit of history of the design philosophies of both pistols are in order. So be forewarned, long winded engineering/history geek out incoming.
To start the 1911 was designed from the ground up purely for combat purposes, full stop. A robust, simple design that was easy to use to kill the enemies of our nation, could be utilized even in conditions that the combatant was not in full fighting form (injured, etc.) and maintain in simple repair with field expediency (read they weren't custom tuned race guns of today). Easy to manufacture with the state of industry at the time, consolidating many of the features found on all modern auto pistols. JMB in his wisdom designed the slide control lever to have an empty magazine actuated slide stop built into it (originally patented in 1902, and later simplified in his 1911 patent to combine it as "an integral part of the handle of the pivot pin" thus having fewer overall parts in the pistol). But it has always been designed as a manual means of both locking the slide back, and the main method of releasing the slide. Keep in mind pistols, and the 1911 in general were originally designed to be used one handed, often from horseback (pistols mainly being the purview of officers afterall). Full, easy control of the pistol with one hand was a necessity. That was also the purpose of not having a full length guide rod or full length dust cover. You could easily chamber a round by pressing the end of the bottom of the slide against something solid to fully cycle the slide. For me personally, that hasn't altered at all. I want to be able to have full use of a pistol one handed, preferrably with the same manual of arms with either hand (yay for ambi controls). Having only one arm free due to carrying groceries/kid is common, and extremity hits tend to be a common form of GSI also, so I want to be able to deploy the weapon without having to resort to things that I don't train with the same vigour as normal manipulations (racking with the sights on your belt, boot, etc.). I still train those too, just not as much. After that, almost every auto pistol designed with defensive/fighting use in mind had the same feature, until Glock came along.
Glock was initially designed mainly for budget constrained militaries, with under trained soldiers (a very large portion of which were conscripts). It had to be inexpensive (not cheap), and easy to gain proficiency with in undertrained personnel. That means as simple a user interface as possible (no manual safeties, etc.) And it was a resounding success in that. Gaston took an engineering challenge, and designed an amazing tool within the constraints he was given, that happened to turn out to be an amazing tool in general, and put the autoloading pistol in the hands of the masses so to speak (not too much of an exageration). The design was simple, had a simple manual of arms, was robust, accurate and very reliable, and also was not expensive to produce. Does that sound handy for another similar (minus the conscripts, hopefully) large force of people that carry guns? Like police departments? Glock became a perfect update to widespread PD usage of revolvers. Same qualities that made it excellent for the aforementioned militaries made it a perfect fit for the average officer in the average PD. In the case of officers that mainly used revolvers, however, it went beyond the benefits that the Austrian Army received while replacing the P38: larger capacity before reload was necessary, easier and faster reloads for the majority of users (Miculek aside ;p), more ammunition possible/easier to carry, easier to shoot accurately, plus built in safety systems that made an auto safer in the type of confrontations that an officer was likely to encounter than other simple autoloaders of the day. Plus, it was very newbie friendly in regards to training to proficiency. Glock is unarguably one of the easiest pistols to train new shooters to use with proficiency and safety. All in all, Glock can only be counted as a success. As far as the slidestop being meant as a slide release also, Glock absolutely considers it a viable method of releasing it, hence the fact that it has serrations/lines (on every stock Glock I've ever shot I've never had a problem using the factory lever to release, excepting the new thin frames, they suck stock if you like the lever release. I just like having more purchase so I put extended stops on my Glocks) But his original clientele had no need of anything that might require extra training (not looking for the next Wyatt Earp), they were going to be taught to rack the slide for malfunctions and administrative loading anyway (simplified training), and a simple stamped sheet metal part is much more time/cost effective than a cast/machined part (budget concerns). Hence, Glock went with a simple, stamped sheet metal control lever/stop. It works, it fits the design and budget criteria, and his clients were happy with it.
When I'm training someone who is new to pistols, I generally recommend a inexpensive tupperware pistol (Glock, M&P, XD, HK VP9). I also train them to sling shot the slide anytime they need to manipulate it or release it for a new magazine. I show them how to use the lever with both their support hand and main hand, but I don't encourage them to waste the limited amount of training time they are actually going to put into it on a technique that while, yes, is a good bit faster in gunfight time, is also a wholly separate technique that requires separate practice to be proficient. If they are actually going to be a student of the pistol though, I encourage them to actually train all the methods enough to be proficient, and then decide what their main technique will be. So yes, slingshot everything is great for the average pistol owner/carrier (and largely conscript militaries) because it allows them to get the most out of the little training they are going to do/get. However, that doesn't negate the benefits of using the lever to release the slide to someone who is actually going to seriously train to use their tools to maximum effectiveness. It's demonstrably faster in getting back on target after reload, like 3-5 shots faster with someone who trains regularly. So, FOR ME, when it counts, I would personally prefer to put more lead into the bad man who needs to go away, so I train to use the lever w/ support hand manipulation.
Sorry for the long winded post, but I wanted to put some background and actual pros/cons and examples of when each method would be better utilized instead of the usual, "it'll get ya killed in da streetz/You gone get prosecuted and fry in da chair for that mod" bs internet dead horse rumor mill that inevitably pops up anytime something like this pops up.
