An intelligent lens-design isn't about "the more lenses, the better".
One of the very best macro lenses, the Leica M Macro Elmar 90mm f4, has only 4(!) lenses, and doesn't miss a single one.
I often use it with macro rings on my EOS R, and it beats,without discussion,the EF 100 L IS.
Of course, it's an f4 lens, without AF.
And what should I say about the Apo Macro Elmarit 2,8/100mm, 8 lenses, so sharp at any setting and aperture that it almost hurts?
You mean, the more elements. And you’re wrong. They couldn’t do it in years past for a number of reasons. Calculation, even with lens design programs, was a real bear. Each extra element adds significantly to the problem. Then there was the mechanical integrity of the lens. Back when, Cooke was known for superb designs that never performed that well, because they couldn’t make them properly. The technology wasn’t up to it. Glasses are being developed every day, new coatings, etc. All of this allows designers to take more advantage of additional elements than they could use decades ago.
‘So yes, designers do look at more elements as being beneficial. It’s pretty obvious, because new lenses are all about more elements when performance, and speed, are the main thrust.
you mention a 90 f4, which I’ve used. It’s pretty good, but bested by a number of faster lenses these days. Now, try to make that Ken’s a more realistic f 2.8, as most macro’s are. Or an f 2, as we see more of them come out. How many elements do you think it would need?
and back in the days of film, what was considered as sharp would be though of today as being just ok.