More advanced and convenient skeletal system

The title of this proposal is "More advanced and convenient skeletal system" and yet to me it seems like you're asking for bones to be less advanced.

Let's take a look at each individual suggestion:

The switching of the three modes of bones should be canceled. I guess this design is to facilitate the resetting of bones, save the loading animation, and facilitate the production of actions.

But in fact, there is do not for this mode switching, and related functions can also be implemented in an uncomplicated way, and the mode switching brings a lot of binding and animation burden. the problem now is that

The mode-switching design is consistent throughout all of Blender, and it goes much deeper than the UI. Even the C code in Blender respects the modes, so removing this behavior would be neither consistent nor easy. I could write a ten-page article about why modes are great, so I'll spare you this and address the individual points instead.

1. The word "binding" is an indication to me that you're used to a different software (Maya perhaps)? Blender doesn't require you to set the binding at all, in fact it's computed dynamically and implicitly. That's why you can move an armature object around and see the mesh react in strange ways - it's recomputing the binding by comparing the rest state of the bones with the mesh's undeformed points. We can't get this behavior in e.g. Maya because bones don't have a distinction between rest state and pose state. At any rate "repeated switching" is hardly an inconvenience unless your armature has thousands of bones.
2. This isn't true - turn off "Lock Object Modes" and you can select them together and use the hotkey. The UI/UX for this is a bit awkward, however, and bears improvement for this and for weight painting.
3. I don't agree that they should be unified. They are two different things. The armature is an object that can be constrained, and each of its bones can have their own constraints. Moreover, the distinction is relevant in terms of function -- bones have a head/tail that allows constraints to target somewhere between the two points. They have an implicit orientation because of the head/tail and this has an effect on any rotation constraint. IK of course only works with bones, how could it work with objects? Even if it somehow could, you'd have to put IK settings on every object in the scene (needless clutter).
4. Batch rename works pretty well for me, but my addon ChainTools does a few things Batch Rename doesn't. I'm eventually going to add regex to this, too.
5. I haven't got a clue what you mean by "skeletal animation aids", but I'm assuming you mean custom shapes. This is not very hard to do in my opinion, but it could certainly be easier. It's annoying that the shape has to be constructed relative to the bone's orientation.
6. I think this one's a known issue, but why would you want to do that anyway? If you find yourself doing this often, you should combine the armatures. One character should have one armature.
7. I think that Blender is actually much better about re-proportioning rigs than e.g. Maya precisely because of the modes. In Blender, the constraints' properties are relative to the edit-bones, so there's no need to rebuild them after changing things. They update almost like magic. So I really don't know what your trouble is here... could it be that you're using one of the constraints that does need to be reset? There are a few of those (Stretch-To and Child Of). I'm writing a tool to automate this for my addon sometime in the future.
8. Not sure how this is different from 5. Did I interpret that one incorrectly?
9. I agree that this is tedious... although I suspect that it's less tedious for me because I use hotkeys to do all of this (maybe you do, too, if not-- you should).

It should even be designed so that any object can serve as a bone. The "any object" driver is uniform, Will be very easy to learn and use, which may also facilitate the implementation of node binding in the future, and it will also be easier to implement the editable motion trajectory of "any object" , and it will be easier to implement the animation layer will also make it easier for bones to participate in physics calculations.Of course, there is no need to make custom graphics and pick them up again, because "all objects" are What you see is what you get.

First-- all of the "easier to implement" is wrong. All of this would be harder to implement if these changes were made. While I like the WYSIWYG idea, there are better ways to improve the custom shape feature in Blender. Objects are not bones. Bones are unique and wonderful in Blender because they implicitly store the rest-position and the posed position of the armature. Because they are all "children" of the armature object, the point of symmetry for the rig is implicit and just works. No tedious mapping of left-to-right or copying, pasting, and inverting keyframes. Poses can be mirrored dynamically in the viewport with or without offset, and can be copied and pasted without opening a single menu. And you don't have to set anything up! All you have to do is name your bones correctly -- which you should be doing anyway. Bones have a head and a tail, as I've mentioned, which gives them an orientation. The only way to set this kind of orientation for an object is to use some kind of rotation - which would introduce non-identity transforms into your rig, which is bad.

The rigging system in Blender has had a lot of thought put into it, it's really, really good when you get to know it. And it's easy to extend and improve with Python. Well, I could keep gushing about this for pages, I won't anymore!