From a personal perspective I wish the reform process had involved amending and not a symbolic replacement of a text which required such unprecedented struggles to become a - reasonably successful - reality, but nothing lasts forever.
The Third was basically the Second with better writing staff. I kind of went in preferring it be a large amendment, but then considering the time frame (about five years) and the structural changes as well as the precedent set in 2010 (with few major changes) much less 2015 I realized that it kind of made sense to have it be a new numbered constitution. Though I certainly see your point.
