Some of them have to be.
Suppose that I go 30 miles, turn 45 degrees and go another 10. Where am I? The answer is an ugly number, and any method of calculation has to agree on that piece of ugliness.
With usual trig, the ugliness lies in computing sin and cos. With his method, the ugliness lies in the difficulty of adding vectors.
Knowing both approaches can be good because you get to choose the method that is more straightforward for the problem at hand. But neither is going to avoid the intrinsic issue that geometry doesn't always give nice numbers.
Cheers,
Ben