Is the shortness of boron trifluoride's bonds better understood and explained now than it was "way back" in the 20th century?

Wikipedia's [Boron trifluoride; Structure and bonding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boron_trifluoride#Structure_and_bonding) says:



> 
> In the boron trihalides, BX3, the length of the B–X bonds (1.30 Å) is shorter than would be expected for single bonds,7 and this shortness may indicate stronger B–X [π-bonding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_bond) in the fluoride. **A facile explanation** invokes the symmetry-allowed overlap of a p orbital on the boron atom with the in-phase combination of the three similarly oriented p orbitals on fluorine atoms.7 **Others point to** the ionic nature of the bonds in BF3.8
> 
> 
> 7 *Chemistry of the Elements* N. N. Greenwood, A. Earnshaw, Elsevier (1997)
> 
> 
> 8Gillespie, Ronald J. (1998). "[Covalent and Ionic Molecules: Why Are BeF2 and AlF3 High Melting Point Solids whereas BF3 and SiF4 Are Gases?](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed075p923)". Journal of Chemical Education. 75 (7): 923.
> 
> 
> 


Google's English dictionary uses [Oxford languages](https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/) and gives the following definition and synonym for "facile":



> 
> *adj* ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial. "facile generalizations"
> 
> 
> Similar: simplistic, superficial, oversimple, oversimplified, schematic
> 
> 
> 


I also noticed that the references cited are from 1997 and 1998 and in the subsequent near-quarter-century quantum-mechanical computational techniques have improved substantially. So I'd like to ask:


**Question:** Is the shortness of boron trifluoride's bonds better understood and explained now than it was "way back" in the 20th century?


