I didn't say there was no need to carry a .45, I gave reasons that made it a good choice, but outside of open carry for animal protection or suppression usage, I don't see what the .45 is doing that makes it better than the .40. I have found no difference in the recoil between .45 and .40, it's all more recoil than 9mm. That said, I've not yet shot a .45 that wasn't a full size pistol, so I'll have to take your word for it that .45 feels better in a smaller pistol than .40 does, but if I was looking to carry a smaller pistol, it would be a 9mm.
Another facet with .45, in both full size and compacts, is you're stuck with 10 rd mags and they're in physically larger pistols. None of this is an advantage for carrying.
You may reload .45, not many people do, and for new gun owners (or soon to be new owners) are constantly told that .40 is basically the worst caliber to choose for a handgun because 9mm is cheaper and easier to shoot and .45 is "more powerful" and easier to shoot. I find that to be biased and bad stuff to tell someone.
I remember being in a gun store a few years ago and two guys in their 20s or early 30s were in the store and one was showing a friend different guns (I assume the one guy was looking for his first pistol) and I remember the non-gun owner asking whether .40 is better than 9mm and both the clerk and the other guy said 9mm is generally better for someone to buy first.
I was checking out a Glock 27 I was picking up and the other guy saw and said, "Oh, a Glock 26." of course I corrected him and told his friend that with most .40 pistols you can buy a 9mm barrel and IMO for a new gun owner, I can think of no reason for them not to have that option and not having to buy a second gun to find out that .40 is shootable and more powerful.
It was interesting that nobody was recommending to this new gun owner to get a .45.