However, you've got to stop pontificating about what you clearly don't understand.
CLARIFY: what is it I do not understand?

I cited the datasheet page that has the parameters for setting the timing on that bus for you yesterday.
How does that you 'cite' something make it that I do not know. Can I 'cite' that GW Bush is the president of the US and then argue that you do not know.
That I refuse to pay a lot of money for a faster processor and then slow it down to a speed Richard can understand does not mean that I do not know how to do it.

Based on that, I asked you to tell us all how much it would slow you down to have an occasional cycle stretched to 230ns.
Where do you get 'occasional' from?

Now I ask you, how can you condemn such an arrangement as being "SLOOOOW"? While I'm sure there are tasks for which the 8255 is inappropriate, there are many more for which it's suitable.
HECK NO, there may be tasks for which the antique can be used, but 'suitable' HECK NO!. If you have to write code that junp through hoops to use something where a current approach makes it straight that can never be a 'suitable' approach.

Is it the "best" way? Well, maybe not, but if it can turn on or off a bit or a byte, or read one, that's all most applications require.
If it is not the "best" way I would consider it TOTALLY UNPROFESSIONAL to use it. But then your professionality can be called in doubt based on some of your arguments for using the antique.

Telling people, just on general principle, or, as you suggest, based on the date code, not to use one, when you don't know why they intend to do that, is just stupid.
The "data code" has nothing to do with it. The SSSSSLLLLLLOOOOOOWWWWWW speed does. I know I call it an antique, it is, but it is the speed, not the date code that makes it antique. I do, occasionally, use 74 TTL chips to get some OOMPH that CMOS do not have, they are old, but not 'antique' since they can keep up.

Now, if you don't object to being considered stupid, then go ahead.
you can call me stupid, I know where the stupidity is: in the past. Some are incapable of following progress and thus will be left behind.

I think you've made your opinions clear enough to everyone. I doubt anyone will take them as seriously henceforth as they otherwise might.
I think your constant throwing oranges into a discussion about apples illustrate the validity of your opinions very well.

CONCLUSION: If you want to live in the past take Richards advise, but at least those of you that are young enough to hope for a career lasting after the antiques has gone out of production, please do not.

Erik