XFS is supported by effectively every distribution and has very significant development each release (even the test-suite for all filesystems is called xfstests because it used to be only part of XFS). And despite being older than ext (and older than Linux itself), XFS has lots of features which ext doesn't have -- such as reflinks and CoW (though XFS also doesn't have ext4-style encryption).
It is the FS for Red Hat 7 and CentOS 7.
Also on RHEL 8.
XFS gains the XFS Copy-On-Write Data Extents feature in RHEL 8 which can speed things up and save space.
XFS is pretty popular among DBAs. It is a solid file system which delivers good performance and is actively developed.
I am using and have used xfs on many systems, from server to embedded. Xfs is reliable and performs well. Debian support is fine. I wouldn't want to switch to any other file system.
I'm glad there is XFS because it supports more than 64k hardlinks (which I use for backups and for structural sharing of immutable data). This is where ext4 fails for me.
That's the original reason I started using XFS on Linux about 15 years ago. I needed all those hardlinks for dirvish. I haven't had a need for dirvish since then, but I still use XFS for largeish volumes with lots of files (won't run out of inodes). LVM does a good job at volume management.