Neonchameleon
Legend
1: This is untrue. Ranger as an archetype has a massive presence outside D&D.Ranger is its own fictional archetype developed through D&D, just like the Druid is. Neither of these classes particularly existed in fiction outside of D&D and similar characters are almost always better described as wizards, sorcerers or priests.
2: So what? The archetypal D&D ranger is Drizzt Do'urden. If the class is meant to cover the "fictional archetype developed through D&D" then it should at the very least cover the archetypal example of that fictional archetype. But it fails at that to the point that you claim that the most archetypal D&D ranger should be a member of another class.
All of which says that if the ranger "is its own fictional archetype developed through D&D" and it is failing to cover far the most famous ranger in D&D then the class doesn't even cover the only source for its own archetype.I think you need to check your updates. Drizzt was a ranger in earlier editions but since 5e has been predominantly a fighter.
So what you are saying here is that the class fails to do what you say is the justification for the class. It's a zombie class - a collection of disjoint mechanics with no fictional inspiration and no roleplaying pointers. Which is why the One D&D ranger is such a soulless collection of mechanics where the mechanics are their own justifications.