An advantage of battenless sails that is not often discussed, probably because relatively few people care about it, is that you can raise the sail with the wind
coming from any direction, there is nothing to get caught on shrouds, spreaders or lazyjacks.
This is, of course, most important to those who sail without engines, or those who plan to sail without engines.
Sails with partial battens can be raised while sailing on a close reach under headsail alone.
With full batten sails, in my experience, you really need to be powering into the wind to raise (or drop) the sail.
How important this is to you will depend on your sailing philosophy, engine
age and reliability
, and planned cruising grounds.
I have sailed boats with full batten sails, partial batten sails, and unbattened sails. I find it difficult to believe that a full batten sail is more cost effective for the long distance cruiser than a unbattened sail. There is, however, no question that it will move the boat better in many, or even most, conditions. How much better depends on the boat. Do you have room for a lot of extra roach? How important is the main in supplying light air drive to the boat? Extra roach can also affect helm
balance in some designs, for good or ill. There is never a simple answer.
My own choice for long term self-sufficiency and economy under sail is an unbattened main. I am a bit unusual in modern sailors in that I consider my engine
a luxury, not a nessesity. I will rig nothing on my boat that would require
a functioning engine for the mobiliy or safety
of the boat. For short range coastal cruising my choice would be rather different.
Certainly full battened sails are better for the sailmaker's and rigger's wallet.