I had a look at Nuke yesterday. I havn't seen it since version 6.3 before I started using Natron. And I see they have added an integrated NLE and are calling it Nuke Studio. So I had a look at some reviews and saw how it is now considered in class with Smoke.
Monolithic - or integrated 'suite' software has a fundamental problem: it just can't stay cutting edge on all of its modules. This has been well established. Another example of a suite is Blender, which has good reason to have a compositor, a video editor and a game engine, but they are all very basic and not so productive. Blender focuses these days on the modelling and animation, which are its strengths, so I think they are on the right track.
Another of the problems that happens with an integrated suite of supposed modules, is that within the code they end up not so modular. For example, I wanted to add a compositing node to my Blender build and found that I would have to maintain it in multiple source files outside the compositing 'module'. And yet, to the extent that the application is modular, there are walls within it that get in the way. For example, you load a video into the video editor in Blender and don't be surprised that you can't see it from the motion tracking or compositing module, and vice versa.
The other big problem is that they tend to have poor integration interfaces. This used to be the case with Blender but now it has pretty good import and export formats and will be getting Alembic which is for 3D animation integration. Finally, with Alembic, a studio can say 'We'll use Blender for modelling, UV, rigging and animation, because its the best for that, then we'll integrate it tightly with Nuke, I mean, Natron", for compositing.
Modular but highly integrated is the way to go. But it leaves you always with the problem of maintaining the integration. For small outfits or a one-time setup done for a project, this can be too much work. So then people opt for the integrated suite. After Effects for example, which has some top technologies. The result, however, is that without using specialist tools you are not going to become a specialist.
Some software, like Nuke and Resolve, did their specialist job so well, they have been twiddling their thumbs and wondering what to do next. Well, take over the world of course! So they have added video editors, trying to gain territory up the pipeline. Let them do that but M. Kepzie and Co. please don't follow Nuke in this way. The most startling thing I saw when I tried Nuke 10 yesterday is that it's scanline approach was not looking as good as how Natron does it. So I say to the Natron gang you have done well to flatter Nuke and not reinvent the wheel, but what you did differently for the renderer was even better! So good - go boldly forth with a new concept for the 3D compositing features and the integration to the 3D application and the video editing application. But regarding the video editor, please aim for integration, not trying to make your own video editor, because it simply won't be as good, and you will be spending time away from the main function of Natron which is compositing.
Currently I am doing the CG and compositing for a 4 minute music video. The editing is being done in iMovie from 90 minutes of source footage, by someone else, which I then need to get into Natron. iMovie -> Export to Final Cut Pro X -> Export to Resolve -> Export AAF. I don't know how I am going to get the AAF into Natron but I suppose I will attack the AAF file with Python or dump it to XML. I logged a request for a AAF read node for Natron which would let you browse through the clips in the time line. That would be enough for me.
Sure it would be nice to get a visual timeline. It would be good also to be able to annotate clips and say, yes done this one, waiting on feedback on this, here is an attached client email and a sketch they made about that one, etc. But if you build it as a basic video editor, then everybody is going to keep asking for all kinds of new additions until you finally have an NLE bolted on to your compositor. And my point is, you won't be able to have the best NLE, best compositor (not to mention 3D modelling and animation).
The film industry has published open source integration software like Alembic and AAF which the open source applications developers have been slow to take up. You could build deep support for both in Natron.
Nuke's 3D concept is a bit weird, the way it puts uses the directed graph, in which each node is a stream operation, well Nuke adds objects to that - cube, plane etc. Obviously it works out but I am sure it could be done better. Maybe look more at Blender?