This explanation goes for gadolf too:
Imagine that you have to go from point (A) to point (B), a distance of 100mts.
You can walk or you can use a bicycle. Indeed, each one is a different paradigm (with their own learning curve), but, in a simplistic approach, both do the same because they go through the field, you use your legs, etc.
What paradigm is faster and effortless?
Do you think that the best trained walker can beat a poor trained cyclist? Is it possible to make new things with the bicycle than are almost impossible by walking?
Having this in mind, Darktable is walking and ACDSee Light EQ is cycling, BUT NOT BECAUSE IT ADJUST THE LIGHTS WITH A CLICK, because it manages the exposure the same way than your camera. This is why you take 40 seconds instead of 40 minutes making the same, as you use seconds instead of minutes covering the 100mts in your bike.
However, Light EQ is not an exposure tool, but tone mapping, it is juts a proof of concept that shows how it is possible to adjust the lightness emulating shadows instead of by a gamma correction as all the RAW editors do (DT and ACDSee by itself).
Now, and thank to this post, my Exposition Zones proposal is to create a new software that uses the exposure management (tone curve) based in shadows as its core, taking advance of the possible benefits that this approach will offer. I want to make an electric bike.
Of course, you may use DT or the SW that you prefer, as you can walk or use the bicycle. Your choose depends of your purpose, but neither they are the same or the result is based on your skills.