With the possible exception of Erlang/BEAM, none of the candidates for "better" of OP cited ever (ever) actually got tested in the field -at scale- to see if it actually delivers the goods. So it is merely an elitist opinion of a niche subset that apparently thinks its take on these matters is beyond question. Gabriel wrote his essay about two actually deployed alternatives, with the "worse" option (UNIX) coming on top. LISP was in fact the incumbent and UNIX the scrappy upstart. None of the OPs cites were incumbents. They are just simply exceptionally safe bets to high horse on.

Also agreed: Java and JVM are were not the "worse is better" options at the time of adoption. Hype alone did not create the massive shift to Java that occurred in late 90s. It was a genuinely positive development for the practice and people were getting results. It was Java's 2nd act of moving into "enterprise" (and Sun's mismanagement of that effort) that created its current sense of 'heaviness' of language.