I guess it becomes a nonsense for people who actually know it’s nonsense… If it were me, I would actually accept it anyway and actually fly the procedure, which I never complained since I fly these nonsense procedures quite often, and I do manage to have the aircraft do these approaches accurately and land anyway.
It makes sense to see this as an issue if you’re familiar and actually know about the correct procedures. But for people like me, who likes to explore and visit airports and destinations that I never even knew existed (I actually have to look for KSNA that you mentioned, since I don’t know what airport that is or where it is), well I just take whatever approach and procedures at face value and assumed and accept that’s just how it is and just fly them anyway.
To me, even the second approach screenshot still makes sense to me since it’s just approaching the airport from the south, turn left, then make a ‘U turn’ to face the runway and land. I never see this as a problem. I thought that’s just how it is.
If I don’t like that approach, then I can just pick another STAR that comes from the north.
Which comes back to the OP’s question. Assuming OP is at the same level of understanding as I do, then I would think the dev version would be better for them than experimental. Like I said, experimental version doesn’t work well with default flight planner. So you would actually need to do “proper flight planning” process to have the experimental version working the way it suppose to. If OP is well versed in doing it, or if they’re planning to do the whole proper flight planning process then yes the experimental version would be the one to go.
But assuming if we just want a point and click flight planning process and just accepting whatever it is that the flight planner give us and just fly it. I just don’t think having the experimental version is worth using since it’ll cause more problems than it solves. That’s why I said the developer version could be the one to go for people like me.