FWIW, I think your friend would be best off using film.
I didn't find digital printing difficult per se, I found computers difficult. However, as I had spent my career with shooting, printing and transparency work I felt that to be a distinct advantage in that I came to the digital party with a pretty good idea of what a print should/could look like regarding attainable quality.
However, though the production of a pleasing monitor image is relatively simple (if mechanical), getting that same quality onto digital printing papers isn't so straigthforward. Personally, I find that nothing I've seen since matches the absolute delight of a well-glazed double-weight sheet of Kodak balck/white. If your pal wet-prints on matte papers, then I'd say the argument is reversed, and digital paper works much better.
In his seventies, I'd advise staying happy and avoiding unnecessary frustration, and digital photography and computers provide enough of that to make you lose the few strands of hair you might have left. Far better to wander into the darkroom with one shot in mind, work with it and retire happy with your labours than spend hours hunched in front of a monitor playing with a hundred also-ran images. Sadly, that's the way the maths seems to run.