There are no people saying "we should be using old analog ampermeters, those are better" That would be just silly.
Ooh, a challenge.
Try measuring charge with a modern meter.
At school we measured charge using a ballistic galvanometer. Principle: dissipate the charge through the meter in a time that is much shorter than the meter's response time. The needle is kicked and the maximum deflection is proportional to the current*time, i.e. charge.
Well I'm sure you will have trouble measuring liters or kilos with digital multimeter too.. Ballistic galvanometer is specialized instrument. If it was something commonly used, multimeters would have a measurement for that.
You could use a meter with high Z and know capacitor, and measure peak voltage.
Nonetheless, analogue ammeters are better for measuring charge, and using them for that purpose isn't silly.
That meter+capacitor technique won't work in many interesting cases.
My english fails me. Sorry. What I wanted to relay is that fact that there are separate instruments to measure current, voltage or resistance doesn't make multimeters stupid. If anything, most of us only use multimeters for those kind of measurements, and we have no separate voltmeters and ammeters and voltmeters, for pretty much anything that multimeters do.
What you are mentioning is a measurement that doesn't exist on multimeter. So it is not only not silly but is only logical thing to use specialized instrument made for that particular measurement.
Of course you can measure quantity of charge with capacitor. It is actually most common method today in today's electrometers, by using known capacitor and connecting it either in integrator mode or in a shunt mode (the one I mentioned). Ballistic galvanometer uses mass to integrate charge pulse into mechanical displacement, capacitor uses stored charge to integrate to voltage directly. Actually, ballistic galvanometers are calibrated by discharging calibrated capacitors into it, making it mathematically equivalent, proven by physical experiment.
Yes, I'm old enough, we did play with those in school too. They are fascinating, very very cool. I love old tech.
Scopes can measure frequency, but my TF930 does it better. But most of the time, I can quickly, while scoping around, verify that crystal on my board runs at 10MHz and that the waveform is OK. And 8 digits and 2-3 ppm frequency accuracy on a scope is better than what that cheap 20-30 ppm crystal will do.
If I need it more precise, I fire up TF930.. But 80-90% of time it's not necessary.