But this argument got lost a long time ago. D&D has never bothered worrying too much about corner cases - by D&D I mean 5e that is. The anti-magic field is such a white room theory crafting point that it's pretty much just a cliche by this point. I'm more than willing to bet my lunch money that only a very, very tiny minority of gamers has ever seen one in play. And, let's be honest, no one has ever seen an Animal Friendship spell counter-spelled.
Thus, D&D has decided that if something is 90% duck, we'll just call it a duck and be done with it. If two things are functionally the same, in 5e they use the same system most of the time. Thus, cantrips use the straight up combat system most of the time, with a few using the saving throw system. Functionally, there is no difference between a Firebolt and someone with a crossbow. Dice might be different, but, the mechanics are identical.
And since D&D1 is aiming for streamlining and simplifying, we're going to get caster rangers. Full stop. That's just how it will be. 5e was based on the idea that anything that is even remotely "spell like" is just a spell, full stop. Thus rangers and paladins become half casters instead of having a list of bespoke abilities. So, we can have two rangers that are actually quite different, simply by choosing different spells.