That's a cop-out. You really have to define "everybody."
I know a guy who deployed a Java application on servers with 64MB of memory, and he did it back before the JIT compiler was any good. It was performant and got the job done. He's not unique: lots of performant Java applications were built on hardware that was tiny compared to today's hardware. But for some reasonable meaning of "everybody," everybody writes horrible bloated Java code that requires costly hardware to run.
I've used simple, practical XML web services -- in fact, we have several running at work, and when adding or changing functionality, dealing with the XML aspect is a rounding error compared to implementing the application logic. But for some reasonable meaning of "every," everybody writing enterprise XML web services creates overengineered, overcomplex, finicky interfaces that require ongoing error-prone tweaking of DOM or SAX code.
Sometimes when everybody's getting it wrong, that just means "it" has proved irresistible to stupid people and PHBs. It doesn't mean a sensible, tasteful engineer won't be able to use it correctly. Ditching a technology because stupid people love to misuse it may be a good fashion choice, and it may have a good way to influence hiring if you don't have more direct influence, but there's no engineering justification for it.
And don't forget that for some reasonable meaning of "everybody," everybody who has tried Lisp programming has become horribly lost and failed to accomplish anything with it. (This may be less true since Lisp is rarely taught in colleges nowadays, but it was true at some point in time.)
I know a guy who deployed a Java application on servers with 64MB of memory, and he did it back before the JIT compiler was any good. It was performant and got the job done. He's not unique: lots of performant Java applications were built on hardware that was tiny compared to today's hardware. But for some reasonable meaning of "everybody," everybody writes horrible bloated Java code that requires costly hardware to run.
I've used simple, practical XML web services -- in fact, we have several running at work, and when adding or changing functionality, dealing with the XML aspect is a rounding error compared to implementing the application logic. But for some reasonable meaning of "every," everybody writing enterprise XML web services creates overengineered, overcomplex, finicky interfaces that require ongoing error-prone tweaking of DOM or SAX code.
Sometimes when everybody's getting it wrong, that just means "it" has proved irresistible to stupid people and PHBs. It doesn't mean a sensible, tasteful engineer won't be able to use it correctly. Ditching a technology because stupid people love to misuse it may be a good fashion choice, and it may have a good way to influence hiring if you don't have more direct influence, but there's no engineering justification for it.
And don't forget that for some reasonable meaning of "everybody," everybody who has tried Lisp programming has become horribly lost and failed to accomplish anything with it. (This may be less true since Lisp is rarely taught in colleges nowadays, but it was true at some point in time.)