What’s the advantage of defining Lie algebra cohomology using derived functors?

The way I learned Lie algebra cohomology in the context of Lie groups was a direct construction: one defines the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex with coefficients in a vector space $V$ (we assume the real case) as
$$C^p(mathfrak g; V) := operatorname{Hom}(bigwedge^p mathfrak g, V)$$
and explicitly defines the boundary map $delta^p: C^p(mathfrak g; V) to C^{p+1}(mathfrak g; V)$ by a formula similar to the coordinate-free definition of the de Rham differential. Finally, one takes the homology of this cochain complex. With this approach, the connection between the Chevalley-Eilenberg cohomology and the left-invariant de Rham cohomology is obvious.
This was roughly the approach used by Chevalley and Eilenberg themselves

However, Wikipedia and some other sources rather define
$$H^n(mathfrak g; V) = operatorname{Ext}^n_{U(mathfrak g)}(mathbb R, V)$$
where one constructs so-called universal enveloping algebra $U(mathfrak{g})$, whose motivation isn’t clear to me, even though I understand the formal definition.
Even when one knows what a derived functor is (which I do), this definition still requires a lot of work, such as the introduction of the universal enveloping algebra, finding the projective resolutions, etc.

At first I thought that the $operatorname{Ext}$ approach might just be abstract restatement of the same procedure that we carry out while defining the cohomology through the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex, but I don’t really see why it should be that way. Well, we take homology of the $operatorname{Hom}$ complex, but it’s where the analogy seems to end because of this universal enveloping algebra, which doesn’t have a clear counterpart in the explicit construction.

Is there any advantage to use the second definition of the Lie algebra cohomology? The only reason I could see is the derived functor LES, but it would probably be much easier to show it directly. There’s also a clear analogy with the group cohomology defined that way – one just takes the group ring $mathbb Z(G)$ instead of the universal enveloping algebra $U(mathfrak{g})$, but group cohomology isn’t hard to construct explicitly and the derived functor definition seems so abstract that it’s useless.

Maybe my confusion stems from the fact that I learned homological algebra separately in a very abstract setting, roughly following Weibel’s book, and while I understood the definitions I don’t think I understood the motivations and the big ideas. I asked a similar question on Math.SE, but now I realized that MO is a better place to ask.