I think you misunderstood my post to be some kind of challenge or criticism. I wasn't trying to engage in an argument or challenge your views with respect to this specific library. I was simply trying to ascertain whether you were trying to get legato transitions from articulations that don't have them (which it seems like you were). And then simply answering your question about why someone would want an articulation that doesn't have legato transitions in the first place on a more general level, not specifically with respect to this library.
Though I will disagree with your last post on two general points 1) yes, the question of resources is still valid even with modern day computing power, though of course this depends on the size of your template. SF are not just catering to those with i9 12-core, 128GB RAM systems. 2) IMO, using a basic long patch to improvise and sketch a quartet does not in and of itself rule out the possibility of polyphonic, idiomatic quartet writing. And it is a perfectly valid and time-tested way of composing just like many revered composers sitting down at a piano to write a string quartet. AGAIN, I'm not suggesting that you should be happy with the basic longs as a way of executing intricate, polyphonic writing in your final version. There are legato patches for that (though you may not be pleased with them). I'm just elaborating on why basic long articulations without transitions are a worthwhile addition for a commercial sample library developer catering to a diverse customer base to add to even a solo strings library.