Isn't digital just as limiting in many ways?
One of the things that I can gain, for instance, with black and white film, is printing on paper with an enlarger. It has advantages over most consumer grade printers, mostly because the weak link in digital currently is the printing. As long as I'm not enlarging to bigger than a couple of feet, paper and film wins for absolute quality.
Not really. The key to your argument is "consumer grade printers". Consumer-grade digital may not compare well to professional-grade optical prints, but that's an apples-to-oranges strawman. A properly profiled pro-grade inkjet printer can hold its own with any optical print in any comparison you care to make: print longevity/colorfastness, DMax, resolution, color gamut, etc. Notice that Michael and many other top-level photographers switched from optical darkroom prints to digital years ago, for reasons that had nothing to do with convenience--the digital prints were simply better. As technology advances, the quality gap between digital and optical prints continues to widen.
Your digital/film cost comparison is similarly skewed, since you failed to factor in the value of your time and the cost of the chemicals needed. Once properly profiled, you can batch-print 250 8x10s with a digital printer and go take a nap or do something else while the print job runs. You can't do that in the darkroom unless you are running a minilab, in which case you are talking about a hardware investment far greater than most pro-level digital printers, with results generally inferior to consumer-grade digital printers. The same is true of your complaint about the learning curve and cost of Photoshop. It's no worse than the jiggery-pokery one must learn to master developing film and printing in the darkroom, just different.