Do you miss the time when a 4 Intelligence character couldn't be an Elf, or when a female human couldn't have 18/00 strength? Would the re introduction of racial and gender minimums and maximums add anyting to 5E, or would it be pointless? Would it detract?
Nope. I don't miss them, because I still have them.
But the races are a bit different in my campaign. Based on the idea that in a lot of fiction, something like elves are seen as superior to humans in some, if not many ways. I like the rules to support that.
I also have class level limits, and spell level limits based on abilities. Again, to support the design of the world itself. Why aren't there more people casting 5th level spells in the world, to the degree that it changes the nature of society? Because it takes a 17 in that ability to do so.
Adventurers are always a cut above, and of course there are also magical ways to improve them. My ASIs give you a +1 to an ability score
and a feat, or +1 plus pick two from: +1 to an ability score, new proficiencies, new skills, new maneuvers, etc.
We also roll our stats in order. You start with what you were born with and work from there. Of course, everybody has at least 3 characters too. The goal is to give you a mix of random determination, and your own choice. With players having so many characters (that can come in and out of the campaign frequently), the restrictions have never been an issue. But they go a long way to helping explain some of the demographics of the world.
I'm sure it won't be popular here, and is often questioned, but then those that decide to play find that they really enjoy it. I also find it amusing that folks would choose not to play it at all when it's only an issue at character creation.