I've thought long and hard about how to respond to some of the posts in this thread because, clearly, I've touched a few nerves along the way. I'm certainly not a troll and I "thought" I had posed a reasonable question about what it is that makes film so durable.
I think you need to consider how some of your terminology came across: "holding on so doggedly", "the world has changed", "most of us have moved on". It comes across as saying that anyone that hasn't switched to digital is technologically stubborn, out of date, and living in the past. The phrase "most of us have moved on", in particular, implies that 'moving on' is somehow an imperative when it is nothing of the sort.
I'm sure that virtually everyone here is capable of assessing a new technology and deciding whether or not to use it. The fact that there has been an explosion of digital in the consumer market, or that it makes the turnaround time much faster for professionals, has absolutely nothing to do with whether it suits everybody. Your comments that technologies used in other activities have developed and become mainstream has nothing to do with photography. The fact that film users might have embraced newer technologies in other fields in no way makes their continued use of film somehow odd or Ludditish. It's a question of using what suits one's needs.
I took up painting a few years ago, and started with acrylics. I got sick of the rapid drying time and switched to oils so that I had more time to work the paint on the canvas. Nothing to do with some abstract desire to be 'traditional', just a choice based on the basic characteristics of the media. I played guitar for 30 years, I've been composing on the computer using MIDI for about 15, and I mess around on a classic Hammond tonewheel organ. Traditionalist? Modernist techie? Neither. Just using what suits.
Sensor dust was what killed off digital for me. My DSLR has been used twice since last Novemeber, and the last time I used it was only for some research photos to scout out locations for a project using large format film. Digital sensors
attract dust just by dint of being powered up. Scuse me, I think there's a design/technology issue there! (Not fit for purpose?) Digital is in its infancy - film has a 150 year head start on it. I couldn't care less if millions of consumers and most pros have bought into digital cameras. If they want to be early adopters of a technology that does not replace film, and the way that film is used, then that is entirely up to them. Doesn't mean I have to join them, and it doesn't mean that there is any sort of imperative to 'move on' just because somebody happens to have invented a new way of making images.