Grassmann's approach is not "klunky and difficult". It's clear and straightforward and makes proving some difficult results much easier than the previous methods, it just takes a bit of a leap of faith to practice enough with it to build fluency. (The subject itself is also challenging, irrespective of approach. When you strip away some of the incidental complexity of a mismatched representation, the inherent complexity of the subject still must be contended with.)
I'd recommend people try to directly read both of Grassmann's two books; there are translations of both into English. (Disclaimer: I haven't made it through either one beyond a skim and reading the first few chapters. Then I got distracted by some other project. Like any math books, reading them takes a lot of slow careful effort.)
It's kind of like taking a bunch of people used to riding horses and handing them a bicycle. The bicycle is not "klunky and difficult" compared to the horse, it's just unfamiliar.
I'd recommend people try to directly read both of Grassmann's two books; there are translations of both into English. (Disclaimer: I haven't made it through either one beyond a skim and reading the first few chapters. Then I got distracted by some other project. Like any math books, reading them takes a lot of slow careful effort.)
It's kind of like taking a bunch of people used to riding horses and handing them a bicycle. The bicycle is not "klunky and difficult" compared to the horse, it's just unfamiliar.