>No, it isn't. Pulseaudio is based on a push model, which is completely broken.
These two statements are both very wrong. The push model is absolutely not broken, it's actually better for media players, networked sound and other non-pro-audio applications because it uses less power and can do more efficient buffering strategies. You're right that it's not good for pro-audio and other latency-sensitive applications, but pulseaudio was not designed to do that on purpose because jack already filled that niche. The pull model has to wake up every application every quantum on a strict deadline to do processing. In some situations pulseaudio should still be able to provide the smallest power usage compared to pipewire, even just continuing to use the pulseaudio API to do buffering on top of pipewire should be a benefit for applications that want it.
Even if it was broken (it's not), that would be an aspect of the design, not the code itself. The code itself is structured in mostly the same way as pipewire.
No, it isn't. Pulseaudio is based on a push model, which is completely broken.
Pipewire uses a pull model, like BeOS/Haiku and jack. It is suitable for pro audio, which pulseaudio could never hope to support.