Plus a Hexblade warlock without EB has a better range attack than most melee builds of warrior classes
It really does not.
For example, a level 11 Fighter with a longbow and STR20 has three attacks doing 1d8+5 damage. That's far better than any cantrip at that level.
That's with zero build and no subclass. Just literally pulling out a longbow.
So that's just a nonsensical claim.
The Hexblade is overpowered and should be an example of archetypes that should be in the AHC.
I have no idea what this means.
The Hexblade should not be a warlock. It was shoehorned into warlock in 4e and 5e in order to not create a new class.
No. This is just flatly untrue.
Hexblade was a Warlock sub-type. There was already a "new class", Swordmage, so that's a nonsensical claim. And claiming that something has been "shoehorned" for the last 15 years isn't a very good argument.
Your argument that the class specific spells are irrelevant...I mean, ranger without hunter's mark or Paladin without find steed could work I guess but...how about no?
Both could and should be class features. So how about yes?
Based on those 2 observations, is it that big a stretch to imagine a Magus-like arcane half-caster with enough, varied, spellslot-fueled spell-adjacent features (a la divine smite) to both create a valid identity and justify not reserving your slots for spamming shield every round? breeeeeeeathes
Like a monk spending spellslots instead of ki points.
It's not impossible but realistically it's going to probably be worse at damage than a Paladin (unless you just rip off Smite) and it's going to be incredibly hard to resist spamming Shield unless you take if off their list, which, for 1D&D, you probably cannot even do, because of the way lists work (and it would obviously be mad to ban them from Abjuration spells).
Also, like, why? What's the benefit?
You're still engaging with the fetish. That you need the class for the purposes of symmetry. You need to propose a concept FIRST, and only THEN do you propose how it works. So far the concepts proposed have largely been ones which would work much better with a Warlock-based chassis.
one of the main reasons i would want one is that while variations of gish are something they've repeatedly made attempts at in 5e and seem to understand is a wanted concept they've never really ballanced it well when trying to 'covert' the other martials or fullcasters into being a gish IMO, and giving them their own class lets them be their own thing rather than having to fit into another class's leftover subclass design space and use that limited space to turn it into something they weren't intended to be.
So explain the class you envision in detail. Justify its existence with something other "it's symmetrical!". Paladins are an extremely loreful class (NPI lol) with a detailed and complex reason to exist. Rangers are a goddamn mess who probably shouldn't be half-casters, but that's a separate discussion. Explain why you need "Arcane half-caster" specifically for the concept you're proposing, and why a variant on the Warlock chassis wouldn't work better.
So far all you're presenting is a circular argument.