Topcat: A couple years ago, my team and I was tasked to design a simple serial optical communication system for a ship to air missile system. The receiver in the missile head was a simple slave much like the one you are proposing. We based our design on the RS232 protocal, using one start/one stop bits. Since the receiver was a simple slave, we succeded by using a minimalist approach, just a linear shift register and some very simple control. The task was made simpler by being synchronous. There was no microcontroller, no UART, no programming, no download to flash memeory, no code to maintain...My point here being that simple electronic solutions are still viable in the age of "everything must be done w/microcontrollers", or else at least with a high level of integration.
Highly integrated solutions certainly have their place, and of course, many innovations would not be possible without them. But I would argue that microcontrollers have made not electronic design and deployment obsolete. There remains many design situations that are most easily accomplished with electronic solutions. Look at it this way: for how long have we heard the death knell ringing for RS232? So-called "advanced" serial communication systems ( USB, 1394, i^2C, etc. ) was supposed to relagate RS232 to historical footnote. And yet, RS232 continues to thrive, even despite the fact that it's no longer installed on PC's. BTW, I had to go out and spend over 30 bucks for a USB-2-RS232 convertor for my projects. Why should I have to convert a supposed superior system to an inferior one???? Why indeed! This simple, "antique" protocal remains very viable despite all the calles for it's disposal. Indeed, integrated chips are still being developed for this portocal!
Sometimes, you simply must be deaf to the ridicule and sneers from those who have become a little too enamored with a single solution to everything. It's not true that everyone thought your solution was a bad one. I would continue to support your effort to get this up and running. I'm not sure I completely understood your requirements, but I would have continued to work with you to make sure I did.
I am reminded of a story I read recently in the "Tales From The Cube" segment of EDN magizine. A hardware engineer needed a simple kill switch for his system, and had two signals to use to kill the system ( one signal was a "key" switch and the other came from some other part of the system ) Anyway, he specified a simple "OR" gate for the circuit, to combine the two signals. His manager, a code-writer, thought his design was too primative, and didn't allow for expansion and flexibility. And so, by the time the manager got through 'fixing' the deisgn, the simple OR gate had grown into a multiplxer, along with the logic to generate the select vector and a bunch of 'unused' inputs. The original, simple circuit grew into an overly complex one full of unnessary 'features.'
The bottom line is that just because there is some sort of perceived 'advanced' solution, that doesn't mean it's always the best one. It only takes a little reasoning to know when your simple solution isn't appropriate, and a more integrated approach is needed.